BoBo’s Global Warming Denial

Over at The Bobo Files, another blog I don’t actually read under normal circumstances, I was interested to see this passage from The Bobo Carnival of Politics (in a discussion of whether Bush will be seen as one of our best presidents with the benefit of historical hindsight):

As for one of your responses listing scientific reasons why you think he’s one of the worst – global warming denial – I would say you are in denial as it has been proven we have been in a cooling spell for the past 7 years and we will continue to cool for another 3 at minimum. You’re the scientist – you know that this is all natural and cyclical. The top scientists and meteorologists in this country have all come out saying man-made global warming is a hoax.

Um, no, not so much. From the current edition of the endlessly debated, ruthlessly edited, and sourced-to-death Wikipedia entry on global warming:

Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005.[1][2] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the temperature increase since the mid-twentieth century is “very likely” due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.[3][2] Natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[4][5] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science,[6] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[7][8][9] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings,[10] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions.[11][12]

So, what can a reasonable person conclude from this? Well, for one, that BoBo is getting his information from some very unreliable sources, and isn’t bothering to fact-check. In the context of his clearly being Internet-saavy, willing to host a blog carnival, and on familiar terms with lefty sciencebloggers like grrlscientist, that tells me that he’s using this amazing communications technology, the perception engine that has done for research what steam engines did for manufacturing and internal combustion did for transportation, in a very specific manner: actively seeking out information that confirms his preexisting biases, while actively avoiding (and doing a damn fine job of it) information that conflicts with those biases.

Sigh. You know the expression about opinions? How they’re like a certain body part, because everyone has one? In the Internet age, substitute “blogs” for “opinions”.

100 Responses to “BoBo’s Global Warming Denial”

  1. knarlyknight Says:

    That post was on target.

    What is the difference between a number of years of abnormally high or low worldwide temperatures, or freaky weather, and true climate change?

    More to the point, do we at least have any agreement on about how many years of above or below average worldwide temperatures it takes for consensus that climate change has occured?

  2. shcb Says:

    While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings,[10] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions.

    It’s more than a few individual scientists, here is a Senate Minority Report from last year listing several hundred scientists and their credentials, many of them from the UN IPCC, and the list keeps growing, the number of prominent scientist that have been added to just this list has gone up over 50% in one year. If that isn’t enough;

    a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”

    From that link

    Furthermore, a Canadian survey of scientists released on March 6, 2008 offered even more evidence that the alleged ‘consensus’ is non-existent. A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.'” According to the survey, only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

    Sorry Al, the science isn’t in.

    This Senate report is 233 pages long with many links to many more pages, if you are truly interested in science you will want to read a few and get the other side of the story, if you are just interested in the politics then by all means carry on.

  3. knarlyknight Says:


    I’m not going to debate the merits of the list of “scientists” behind the senate minority report, that may be addressed by others, but I can tell you that the APEGGA survey is totally irrrelevent.

    Most all of the members (and at least 68% of them!) are not “scientists” at all, especially in the sense of having anything to do with the scientific process or thinking on global warming. Most of their members are engineering types or geologists closely associated with “dirty” industries such as Alberta’s oil and gas sector which has a strong, and I do mean very strong, group think mentality and lobbying forces when it comes to anything that may affect their bottom line profits. Make no mistake, they view the climate change “debate” as little more than a direct personal attack on their livelyhoods.

    I know the APEGGA group well from a few decades of personal experience with them, and trust me you would not want them making public policy on much more than finding the cheapest route for a pipeline or guessing where the best undiscovered nickel deposits may be hidden.

    As for the senate minority report, thanks for the link, it seems to consolidate much of the skepticism I have noted in non-mainstream news disseminators such as

  4. shcb Says:

    That’s funny, because that is the same argument my side uses for the original 2200 or so scientists that started this whole global warming debate, that they were mostly managers and scientists of disciplines other than meteorology. I’m also surprised you can get that many people (51,000) to respond to a questionnaire :-) My point though is that there are many more people with expertise in this area that are questioning global warming than people like AlGore want you to believe, which makes me all that more skeptical. “don’t pay any attention to the man behind the curtain” type thing.

    One thing for sure is that vibrant, wealthy economies can fix things like the environment better than poor economies, what I fear is that the environmental movement has been hijacked by people with alternative motives (socialism) and we will dumb down our economies to the point that we won’t be able to invest in solutions to real problems like running out of oil sometime, solutions like fission, when there really wasn’t a problem (global warming) to begin with. I think that is at least worth some skepticism.

    Here is an example, Democrats have been wanting cap and trade, last year as the Leiberman-Warner bill was being debated on the floor Mark Warner (yes the same Warner) said that he could not support this bill unless his state got more credits than other states. So many of the “solutions” to global warming are so steeped in politics it is hard to take it seriously.

  5. knarlyknight Says:

    I hear ya. Maybe a few questions were included in the membership dues reminder.

    We have a fledgeling Cap and Trade system starting in BC. Government took the lead by mandating a net zero carbon footprint for all its own operations by 2010 with anything over zero being “penalized” through adding cash to fund a new Crown corporation that would invest in local carbon reducing ventures. Expecting cost of the provincial government to increase. Industry will be forced to play too later next year.

    Although there are various exchanges around the world doing a booming business in carbon offsets, the concept is treated with skepticism and mistrust in some quarters. International exchanges that take money from westerners with guilty consciences and plant trees in the Amazon are seen as ineffectual ventures at best, and outright cons at worst.

    Creating a B.C. one was seen as a way of localizing the benefits, and ensuring they are for real. Liberals were keen at the time to highlight spinoff benefits like new jobs in carbon accounting, carbon brokerage and carbon auditing.

    That’s from this little write up on the program: If you choose to read that, you might want to note that the BC “Liberal” government is “liberal” in name only, their true stripes are strongly right wing conservative (and I have the tax breaks etc. . to prove it.) There is very little that is “liberal” about those guys with the exception of the global warming file, and that’s only because they think that their political survival depends on a certain level of action that is clearly demanded by voters who are convinced climate change is happening now and that action now is of the highest priority.

  6. shcb Says:

    political animals will do that

  7. jbc Says:

    It’s not surprising that Inhofe can put together a list of 400 people, and claim it stands as a legitimate scientific challenge to anthropogenic climate change. Inhofe has been spouting bullshit about climate change for a long time now.

    Nor is it surprising that the list has been shown to to be riddled with people on the oil and gas industry payroll, TV weathermen, non-climate scientists, and people who actually have spoken out in favor of action to combat global warming.

    Nor is it surprising that the right-wing echo chamber is busy promoting the list as if it constitutes some sort of real reversal on the part of climate scientists.

    Future generations, living on an impoverished planet with no way to undo the damage we’ve done, will not look kindly on things like this.

  8. shcb Says:

    Economic impoverishment for no good reason is indeed what we are worried about.

  9. jbc Says:

    I don’t doubt that you really are worried. I just think your analysis of what constitutes the most worrisome threat is based on a spectacularly crappy mental process.

    For what it’s worth, we’ve now got at least a somewhat greater preponderance of non-idiots in power in this country. We’ll see if that does any good.

    My prediction: It will do some good, yeah. But it won’t be enough to turn the tide.

  10. shcb Says:

    Oh, well golly gee it must be them inferior redneck genes that don’t let us folk in flyover country have a good though like you folk from them areas of enlightenment. We have one of those places here, it’s called Boulder, at one point we were trying to get donations to transplant a section of the great wall of China to surround the commies under the flatirons, but now that China is turning capitalistic it just doesn’t have the same significance.

    Oh you guys are going to get a lot of your wishes, with people like Carrol Browner joining the administration. But I see you are already forming a backup position, we are too late for any good that the Chosen One and his men do to have any effect, the last 8 years have doomed us. As Carlin said, if the earth didn’t want us here she could shake us off like a bad case of flees.

    My God man, if this is so bad we can’t afford to just steal from the producers to give to the non producers we need to act and act soon. Let’s outlaw coal plants, cars and breathing, if we do all that worldwide we can eliminate 4% of greenhouse gasses. It’s for the good of the earth after all. One of the first things that made me suspicious of this scam was when it was announced the solution to pollution was for the US to give its profits to other people in locals that don’t produce anything, except for China of course. Then you drive into a Chinese city and the pollution is worse on a good day than 1960’s era Los Angeles on a bad day. It looks like a Kansas dust storm.

    CO2 has gone up 5% since 1997 and yet the temperature hasn’t risen. And yet AlGore said “forget the science all you need to know is more carbon dioxide means higher temperatures”. Really? I heard Sagan say it lowered temperatures thirty years ago, did the science we are supposed to forget change? Or just the political spin. Guess where my money is.

  11. enkidu Says:

    the above post exemplifies why I use comedy and satire to engage wwnjs

  12. NorthernLite Says:

    Reeeeee mix!!

  13. knarlyknight Says:

    Wow I had no idea he was so talented!

  14. NorthernLite Says:

    I don’t know I don’t know I don’t know – Fuck!

    lmao – YouTube is greatest invention since the Internet itself!

  15. knarlyknight Says:

    Yea, and almost as good a time killer… The thing that interests me about the real O’really? clip, the original – not the Remix, is that it shows an incredibly motivated, ultra intense, moderately intelligent and highly talented announcer who is 100% dedicated to his own aggrandizement and self-deception with its inevitably evil outcome.

    Yet that pales in comparison to the remix, that rocks. I wonder if Mr. O’really? likes it?

  16. NorthernLite Says:

    Obama’s first state visit will be to Canada, where climate change will be at the top of the agenda.

  17. shcb Says:

    oh goody

  18. shcb Says:

    That is really quite sensible, go to a country that is friendly and speaks your language and talk about something unimportant that will get you good press in both places, kind of a preseason game, doesn’t really count but gets the fans fired up.

  19. NorthernLite Says:

    Haha, if you think that’s what’s going to happen, you’re in for a very stressful future, my friend.

    I realize that your expectations of national leadership of been severely lowered over the past 8 years, but believe us when we say, change is coming to North America.

    8 more days!

    I also just heard that aside from making Canada his first state visit (reviving a long standing tradition that was broken by whats-his-face), one of his first orders will be to close Gitmo.

    Not even in office yet and he is impressing the hell out of me. The clouds are beginning to part and the future is lookin’ good!

    Welcome back America!

  20. shcb Says:

    what is he going to do with the prisoners?

  21. knarlyknight Says:

    Most will probably be compensated for unlawful detention and released somewhere near Crawford Texas.

  22. shcb Says:

    I’d like to see that, doesn’t Ted Nugent have a place there? He and Shemane could get some target practice in, no jury of their peers would convict down there. A safer place for the Arabs would be San Francisco, maybe Nancy P could throw a black tie for them, with Soros giving the key note speech.

    But seriously, has he said what he is going to do with them? I would think that would be an important detail.

  23. knarlyknight Says:

    All I’ve heard is that he’s warning people not to get too excited because there are a lot of difficult details to work out so it may take a little more time than shutting down a hardware store. I guess NL didn’t hear that part yet.

  24. NorthernLite Says:

    Actually I did. But here’s the crazy thing Obama wants to do: Put them on trial if there’s something to charge them with, or release them. I know, it’s crazy.

    And it will take time, but the fact the he’s making it one of his first orders is encouraging to those who care for justice and the rule of law.

    Bush didn’t fuck everything up overnight, so it will take some time to fix, yes.

  25. shcb Says:

    what is he going to charge them with?

  26. knarlyknight Says:

    yea, good one shcb. I know one of those guys is guilty and has admitted under torture to being bin Laden’s chaffeur. That’s really bad, so how about charging him with operating a motor vehicle without a valid drivers licence (assuming he had s no Id on him at the time.)

    That was an easy one, most of the inmates were picked up because their Afghan warlord figured that guy there would be good for the $10,000 bounty the Americans were were offering. Too bad there is no law against being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Let’s see, still others are accused of being present in al Qaeda training camps. That sounds bad too, but any defense lawyer should be able to convince a jury that the threats posed by them is actually far less than the economic havoc and environmental carnage actually wrought about by graduates of American business schools over the past 30 years.

    Then there are those who were actually captured in battle and out of uniform. They should be subjected to a lecture from George W. about the importance of wearing the right clothes for the occasion. He could give a Powerpoint presentation. Slide #1 – picture of W. giving a “Mission Accomplished” speech on an aircraft carrier: “wear a flight suit”; Slide #2 – picture of W. on the ranch: “wear a cowboy hat.” Slide #3 – Pic of W. at a Hurricane aftermath photo opp.: “wear clean casual work-type clothes” Slide #4 – pic of W kissing Jeff Gannon’s head: “whooops how the hell did that get in here?”

    Now for those that have actually committed terrorist acts, I suppose they could be charged with murder, or conspiracy to commit murder, etc.

    Hey NL, sorry for saying that, I actually figured you would be two steps ahead of me on that, I was just being flippant.

  27. shcb Says:

    How would any of those charges fit into US law? Ergo, why would those cases belong in American courts? Your goal, or at least the end result will be sending them back wince they came so you can embarrass Bush. Bad idea, but you’re in charge. Remember how turning your enemies loose turned out in Saving Private Ryan?

  28. NorthernLite Says:

    Why are you asking me what to charge them with? You’re the ones that have had locked them up for years without charge/trial. If there is nothing to charge them with, they should be freed.

    Why haven’t you charged them with anything? It’s been like 7 years.

  29. enkidu Says:

    We used to be a nation of Laws. Then we were overtaken by the reThuglikans.

    I hope Obama delivers. End torture, restore habeus corpus, The Constitution and finally, if we can prove crimes, prosecute them. I am talking about the amoral, illegal and criminal cabal that has run our country into the ground over the last 8 to 30 years: the Thugs must go. You can be a rump party from the deep south and hicksville, but your days of worldwide fuckups are over.

    Gitmo should be shut down and the prisoners charged with crimes, adjudicated and then punishments meted out (including death if necessary). But if we have no proof, then they must be let go. Law and Order ring any bells?

    wwnj cites a hollywood movie to justify indefinite imprisonment, torture, lawlessness… what next? inspirational quotes from Chuck Norris? I hear he’s almost as big a douchebag as Ted Nuggethead. I am embarrassed that you are (supposedly) from my species.

  30. shcb Says:

    they are prisoners of war, they have broken no laws unless they are guilty of war crimes and should be freed when the war is over.

  31. knarlyknight Says:

    That’s the f*cked up thinking that got you into this mess in the first place.

    Circular logic. Terrorism will never end, but there must always be efforts to stop it (or in Americanese “a war on” it), ergo shcb is promoting imprisonment forever. Life imprisonment without charge or trial – what an asshole.

  32. shcb Says:

    Terrorism is a tactic, we are fighting a specific group of people, Islamic Jihadists, they can stop at any time, then this war would be over. You are probably right that they will not stop until any current prisoners of war have died of old age, but that is their call.

  33. knarlyknight Says:

    LOL – shcb finally admits terrorism is a tactic! Thus implicitly admits that George W’s so called “War on Terrorism” is a PR fraud.

    Good luck specifically defining that group, for every “Islamic Jihadist” who would carry a weapon there are about 1,000,000 others who would provide material and/or moral support.

    Jihad is fundamental to Islam and the Koran, you have just announced a religious war against Islam, approximately 1 billion people, or more than 20% of the world’s population. Good luck, fool.

  34. NorthernLite Says:

    It’s a war on a noun, it was designed to last forever. Thankfully, it’ll be over in 7 days.

  35. shcb Says:

    So the Arabs will stop trying to kill us in 7 days?

  36. NorthernLite Says:

    Hopefully they don’t stop until they find you first.

  37. shcb Says:

    I’m pretty heavily armed

  38. knarlyknight Says:

    In plain language what shcb is actually saying is that he has flabby triceps.

  39. shcb Says:

    that’s why I own guns, I’m to out of shape to fight and too slow to run. Old men have to be more dangerous.

  40. enkidu Says:

    I can see that wwnj has enjoyed watching 24
    where torture is cool, man, cool!
    so wwnj, if your goal is to kill 100:1 and the ienjs are also aiming for 100:1 kills, it won’t take very many rounds of this sort of ‘thinking’ (killing) before everyone is dead. Hell of a way to run a planet. Your ‘thoughts’?

    I think wwnj has a different definition for the word “jihad” than you do. For wwnj it’s all about killing. Kill, kill then kill some more (did I miss a kill in there?) Jihad is the struggle to follow God’s way and the path revealed by Mohammed. It isn’t all about killing nonbelievers.

  41. shcb Says:

    I have never seen an episode of 24, don’t know why, just never have. And no, my idea isn’t to kill 100 to 1 and them to kill 100 to 1 that would be a tie, I don’t like ties. My objective is to kill 100 or 1000 to 1, whatever it takes to win and go home. I don’t want to kill, kill, kill as you say, I just don’t want them to kill me so I have no qualms about killing them first.

    I rarely go anywhere without a knife or gun and yet I don’t go looking for someone to kill, I’ve never killed anyone in my life, really don’t want to start, but I will if I have to.

  42. knarlyknight Says:

    Enk, agreed. the issues for the wwnj’s then becomes what is a particular jihadist’s level of involvement in jihad and does it involve any intent or wilingness to kill? How would they determine that (through torture probably)? Is a Jihadist an enemy combatant if they aid and abett someone else who has an intent to kill? Is giving water to a thirsty murderous jihadist a crime? ? And is intent or willingess to kill or aid in a jihadist’s activity sufficient to be an enemy combatant or does the jihadist need to have some means or opportunity to commit murder in pursuit of jihad? If so does the carrying of weapons in the presence of non-believers constitute a threat that must be neutralized by killing the suspected jihadist (or locking them up indefinately)? and if so then what constitutes a weapon i.e. should an America at war with Islamic Jihadists allow muslims in America to own or carry a box cutter?

    Considering wwnj’s can’t even figure out any shade between black and white, there is zero possibility that they would do anything other than screw up, yet again, in spectacularly vivid color.

  43. enkidu Says:

    so let me see if I get this straight, you have actually upped your ratio to 1000:1?

    so one person on either side is killed by an extremist
    the other side kills 1000 in retaliation
    the other side then kills 1,000,000
    the other side then kills 1,000,000,000
    finally with only 5 billion innocents left to kill the winner is declared!

    I sure hope you have a carry permit for your gat (actually I’d love to see you thrown in jail for concealed carry violation, because I am sure you are way too unstable to be granted a concealed carry permit). Your shoot first (empty clip, reload, empty again) never ask questions ‘thinking’ is why this world is a dangerous place.

  44. NorthernLite Says:

    24 is my favourite tv show ever man! But I realize it’s tv, it’s not real, unlike some people. Plus, Keifer is Canadian!

    shcb, you should watch it, I have a feeling you’d really like it.

  45. shcb Says:


    I know I should the guys here at work are just nuts about it. There must be something on opposite it that I watch. I’ve seen bits and pieces a couple times but I always seem to get in too late and can’t catch up with the episode.


    in war you don’t kill for retaliation, you kill for attrition and strategy, you figure the ratio after the war is over, it is just a statistic. We killed 10 to 1 Japanese and not quite 2 to 1 Germans, that was enough in both cases. We didn’t stop killing Japanese when the ratio got to 2:1 because we hadn’t won yet, but we didn’t keep killing Germans until we reached the 10:1 ratio after they surrendered either. This is what is so frustrating debating, if you can call it that, with you guys, you twist whatever I say to fit you preconceived notions and then you haven’t a clue about much of anything you are talking about, it is really hard to have a rational discussion.

  46. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    I’m somewhat reluctant to post this here, but I thought it was interesting:

    Especially since while it offers a different perspective, the author also voices the following:

    Carbon dioxide has quite a different pernicious influence—not on the climate but on synoptic activity. It absorbs infrared radiation. When tropospheric air is warm enough for complete absorption, radiation energy passes into gas fluctuations. Gas expands and dissolves to send warm air up to the stratosphere, where it clashes with cold currents coming down. With no noticeable temperature changes, synoptic activity skyrockets to whip up cyclones and anticyclones. Hence we get hurricanes, storms, tornados and other natural disasters, whose intensity largely depends on carbon dioxide concentration. In this sense, reducing its concentration in the air will have a positive effect.

  47. enkidu Says:

    How did I twist your words dear nutjob?
    You want to kill 1000 of Them to every 1 of Us killed (which is a war crime btw – not a proportionate response). I basically quoted you. Sounds like you have a different (perhaps twisted) view of what the word twist means. You are eager and always ready for violence (you carry a gun or knife at all times? jesus h christ you need professional help).

    You shouldn’t use the word rational, as it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

  48. shcb Says:

    Better be careful Jayson, keep posting things like that and they will say there is something wrong with your episiotomy.

  49. enkidu Says:

    it is from a russian website… as jayson has demonstrated so ably, it’s just one guy’s opinion ;-)

    suddenly the ruskies are the bee’s knees about truth and climate science? really? careful wwnj or we’ll start calling u a commie

    plus the word is “epistemology”
    perhaps you should look up the word episiotomy… it definitely doesn’t mean what you think it means!

  50. shcb Says:

    :-) well golly gee, i ain’t very good with them big words, guess i am stupid

  51. enkidu Says:

    when you substitute a word that means “to cut from the vagina to the anus” for a word that means “understanding how knowledge works” one has to wonder

  52. shcb Says:

    so you don’t think someone that has been at the birth of three kids, a couple grandkids a more than a few nieces and nephews didn’t make that mistake on purpose? I just like to tweak JBC a bit. I find it amusing that if you believe a different set of experts you somehow have an actual deficiency in brain capacity, you aren’t just wrong or have a different opinion, there must be something wrong with the boy, nobody sane could think that, I mean come on, “no one I know voted for Nixon how can he be president?”

  53. NorthernLite Says:

    The shift to become more environmentally sustainable has begun, and so to has the creation of well-paying green collar jobs, at least in some places.

    And there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

  54. enkidu Says:

    nice try wwnj, aint gonna fly

  55. shcb Says:


    I don’t know how many times I can say this, I don’t have a problem with “green” technology, I embrace it as long as it makes some kind of sense and the cost is absorbed through the normal business and technological cycle. So this grid is slated to cost $1,500 per car served. That sounds reasonable to me. I would thing the gasoline pipeline of pipelines, trucks, service stations and such is that much or at least close enough, and with electricity there is less ongoing expense, you don’t need trucks hauling every gallon of electrical power for instance.

    The question I would have is where is all this power going to come from? Are the electric cars that much more efficient that minimal additional power generation is required? I saw this in the old field as reciprocating engines were replaced by electric motors, a five horsepower electric motor would replace a 10 or 15 hp gas/natural gas/diesel (pretty much anything that will burn) engine. If more power generation is required where is it going to come from? If we build more coal plants then have we just moved the pollution from here to there? Are environmentalists willing to give up their opposition to nuclear in return for electric cars if that is the most practical source of power? I want all these questions at least considered. What I see in this green movement is a lot of posturing and hopping on bandwagons looking for that magic bullet, that is the part I don’t like.

  56. shcb Says:

    oil field, not old field. Spell check said it is right

  57. NorthernLite Says:

    We’re closing our coal plants in Ontario, there’s only a couple left and they’re slated to close by 2012. And yes, a lot of environmentalists are coming to terms with the fact that nuclear will have to play a big role. Wind, sun, hyrdoelectric, nuclear, geothermal, hell we’re even burning our garbage in some places and it’s producing electricity.

    Sometimes I forget that the debate down there is a few years behind what we’re talking about up here. Hopefully with new leadership, you’ll guys will get moving on some of these things.

  58. shcb Says:

    we’ve made this silly mid step of burning natural gas simply because there is a perception it is cleaner. all these methods have their place and time.

    You also have to take into consideration Canada only uses 14% of the electricity as the US

  59. NorthernLite Says:

    Noted, for sure.

    One of the best reasons I think the US has for taking strong measures to switch to sustainable energy was uttered by Obama during the campaign:

    Even if the US drilled every square inch of it’s land (incl. offshore) for oil, you would still only find 2% of the world’s oil underneath you and the US uses 25% of the world’s oil. I’m no math whiz but…

    It’s not hard to figure out that it is in America’s best interests to get off the oil. But I didn’t expect much action from a former oilman, I do under Onama however.

  60. shcb Says:

    but of course we don’t use oil to produce electricity and most of his proposals are electrical producers. But I’m all for getting off oil. I don’t think it will happen for a mimimum of 4 or 5 presidential terms though. but you have to start sometime.

  61. shcb Says:

    that statement of 2% versus 25% is a little misleading by the way :-)

  62. NorthernLite Says:

    Of course you don’t use oil to generate electricity, I just meant to illustrate that all these things will help your security AND clean up the environment AND produce good jobs.

    I’m sure it may be a little misleading, it did come from a policitician’s mouth, but it’s not hard for most people to get the point. Are you saying if it was more like 5% and 20% it would be okay to continue down that road?I believe he was getting his stats from the Dept. of Energy, do you have a better source that shows those numbers to be way off?

    Either way, even if it was 10% to 15% you’d still be screwed, that’s the point.

  63. shcb Says:

    no what I am saying is the 2% is the supply and the 25% is the current output, the two don’t have to correspond to one another, the may but they don’t have to. The 2% could be enough to supply the US for a million years and the statement would be true but not as pertinent as if the 2% were only enough to supply us for a week. See where I’m going? Of course I’m using absurd numbers for illustrative purposes. Also if you close down a coal plant and make a nuclear or wind plant you probably haven’t gained or lost jobs, you have just transferred them, which is fine, but to be clear…

    I don’t know if you have had time to read Obama’s job creation plan but you should, now I’m not that opposed to it, a few things, but from a liberal it’s not bad. When you get a chance to read it notice that in a couple places they say jobs will be created OR saved, in most other instances they say jobs will be CREATED the press, including Fox, used the wording “created” without “or saved”. The Obama people say very plainly that unemployment will be at current levels or higher well into 2010 but that with their plan the unemployment won’t rise much above 8% but without it could go to close to 10%, a noble effort, but you have to be careful reading headlines without reading the actual documents. The headlines said “Obama plan to create 3.6 million jobs” but the text of the 14 page Obama document clearly said no such thing.

  64. NorthernLite Says:

    Yes, you’re using absurd numbers, thanks for pointing that out. Hell, even if he just created 10 jobs it would be a huge change from the current administration. :)

    Speaking of which… the day has finally arrived!

    So long! Adios! Good-Bye! Au Revoir! Good Riddance! To the…

    Worst. President. Ever.


    “The energy on the streets is something I’ve never seen before,” said Nancy Wigal, a 45-year-old technical writer who lives in the Mount Vernon Square area. “People are walking lighter, standing taller and are reaching out to one another. It feels like hope. It feels like shared happiness.”

  65. shcb Says:

    :-) enjoy the day my friend, you guys deserve it.

  66. NorthernLite Says:

    Thanks man. You should try to as well, afterall, this is a great moment for your country.

  67. shcb Says:

    It’s not that big a deal, we’ve elected liberals before.

  68. knarlyknight Says:

    Oh come on shcb, open your heart a little it won’t hurt to play nice.

    I like Moore’s take on Robert’s, a man whose appointment Obama opposed, flubbing of the oath of office. He calls it the “Last Illiterate Act of an Illiterate Administration”. So true! Yet so refreshing to hear Obama pause & look at Robert’s as if to say “wtf have you been smoking, man?” and as Roberts continues with his flubbery we witness Obama take about a quarter second to analyse Robert’s mistake, determine options and decide that to proceed with Robert’s “unique” wording of the Oath of Office will suffice, and then Obama delivers it with humility, humour and dignity.

    There is a certain confidence and hope that arises simply from witnessing the president handle a minor impromptu moment like that with intellect, confidence, and efficiency. What a refreshing change from the extended moments of confusion arising from bunglings of the former president!

  69. knarlyknight Says:

    video of oath: www .

    The oath is contained in the Constitution:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” But when Roberts swore in Obama, he flipped some of the words, saying: “I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully.”

  70. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, come on man, where are you?

    This is where you are supposed to draw my attention to some overlooked law setting out that failing to properly recite the oath of office before noon on inauguration day makes the presidential candidate forfeit his right to the presidency.

    Honestly, I can’t bear to see you this downtrodden. Try to perk up a little.

  71. shcb Says:

    As far as I know there isn’t a time limit for when the president has to be set :-) Clinton was late too, but he was always late, good ole boys like to BS too much.

    Honestly though, I didn’t sleep much last night, I blamed it on too much to do at work but… I finally got up and worked on a couple projects for a few hours, I’m sure my colleagues were a little dumbfounded by emails sent at 2 AM but what are you going to do? After reading his speech I probably won’t sleep tonight either :-) I’m surprised he didn’t start with “comrades and fellow travelers”

    I was a little disappointed, the one thing I thought he could do was give a good speech but this one fell flat. That doesn’t mean he can’t be a good president, I just wasn’t that impressed. I’m going home, have some dinner, take a double shot of melatonin and hit the sack.

  72. shcb Says:

    BTW, I cried when Clinton was elected, tears and all, I’m sure I’ll be back in rare form in a couple days.

  73. knarlyknight Says:

    Good plan.

    By the way, Bush didn’t pardon Scooter after all…

  74. shcb Says:

    nope, maybe someday you will see Bush for the good decent man in a very bad situation he really was. But it will take time.

  75. knarlyknight Says:

    I’ve always liked certain aspects of W’s personality, and I’ve never been certain if some of his policies of which I despise were actually his or his advisors. Good and decent – of course, in some (many?) respects. It’d be great to go fishing with him and his dad sometime. Or bike down to a local pub for a few. It’s that other side, that bratty frat kid, the pathological cruel streak that he has never fully concealed that I find a tad offensive. Then there’s the potential grand hypocrisy of being the born again Christian & vehemently opposed to gay marriage etc. but yet never fully explaining the extent of this relationship:
    …and from wiki, this blip about Guckert a.k.a. Ganon:

    Democratic Representatives John Conyers of Michigan and Louise Slaughter of New York had submitted similar requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), on February 15, 2005. The Department of Homeland Security answered Slaughter’s request with Secret Service records of Guckert’s check in and out times at the White House.[27] The Secret Service Records appear to show that he checked in, but never checked out on many occasions, and visited the White House on several days during which no press conference or other press events were held.[28] In a 2007 interview, he stated that he has never spent the night at the White House.[8]

  76. knarlyknight Says:

    But that’s a mere grain of sand next to the mountain of human rights abuses W’s accused of promulgating.

    But, as you say, “it’s your [our] day” (I never really understood the logic of that statement, except to see it as your being too disheartened to even twist two irrelevent facts into a convoluted case against liberals.)

    But since it’s “our day”, let’s turn to Obama’s updated Homeland Security site: There, does that make you feel better? Quick, tough, and prioritized. Not bad for the Commander in Chief’s first day, eh?

  77. shcb Says:

    Ok, got a good night’s sleep. The homeland security page looks ok. Bush and Co have won the war in Iraq so leaving there in an orderly manner is appropriate and planned by Bush BTW, Afghanistan is heating up so that seems sensible as long as we don’t use the same tactics as we did in Iraq, Afghanistan is a different place. Making the military lighter and more responsive was of course Rumsfeld’s idea that he implemented over the objections of many, I like that. I’m a little concerned with his nuclear plans, he seems to want to negotiate here, which is fine if the other side wants to negotiate but of course bad guys lie. But we’ll see. It’s hard to predict until the actual situation pops up. He also has a dove congress to contend with, most of what is in this Homeland Security page is a continuation of the Bush policies, if congress decides to gut some of the tools Bush implemented will Obama have the courage to veto them?

    New Capabilities to Aggressively Defeat Terrorists: Improve the American intelligence apparatus by investing in its capacity to collect and analyze information, share information with other agencies and carry out operations to disrupt terrorist networks.

    Sound like the US Patriot Act on steroids, “carry out operations to disrupt terrorist networks” really? I like that. Didn’t Democrats in Congress want to get rid of the Patriot Act? All those “illegal” wire taps that are prescribed in this law that Bush followed to the letter of the law making them “legal”. At least that is the finding of the FISA court ruling in August that was released last week or so. The story that found its way all the way to page 13 in the New York Times. So the question is; will he veto an effort of congress to weaken this bill, divesting in its capacity to collect and analyze information if you will?

  78. NorthernLite Says:

    “Won the war in Iraq”. LOL, I almost fell off my chair. Only a retard would think that campaign was a success. It’s universally recognized as the worst foreign blunder in US history and a big reason your country is collapsing. Btw, where is that Osama guy? You know, the guy who carried out the worst attack on American soil on Bush’s watch. Maybe Obama will catch him, wouldn’t that be something.

    Anyways guys, so long for a while! I really see no need to visit here anymore, unless Obama starts “lying”, which I don’t see happening.

    Take care,

  79. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    At this point, I’m not sure speculation on specifics is going to do any good. We’re going to see what’s going to be done relatively soon. It seems to me like there is a baseline of uniformity for the rhetoric of our leaders, even The Daily Show was point that out last night.

  80. shcb Says:

    So when a Republican is in the White House it is a “lie” when it is a Democrat it is a “baseline of uniformity for the rhetoric of our leaders” 1 syllable, 1 word, vs 17 syllables and 9 words George Carlin would be spinning in his grave if he were alive today.

  81. enkidu Says:

    I watched the daily show last night and it was damn funny. Funnier than usual. The criminal dumbya administration induced a level of outrage fatigue that eventually wore the entire nation down (except wwnjs who wanted more of the stupid with extreme incompetence).

    I think jbc and the daily show will have plenty of fun with the lies and screw ups of our political system. I don’t think Obama is the messiah (he’s a very naughty boy!), but remember there is a dumb and dumber Retardlican rump party that will provide plenty of comic relief.

    I actually think the O’ministration is smart to signal continuity in some things and a reluctance to prosecute. It shows restraint and willingness to work together for the good of the country. But I do expect them to go for the damn jugular if they can find a clear smoking gun. As to what it will be? Can’t tell until the emails from the RNC are seized and correlated against the ‘records’ the bushbots ‘found’ just before the handoff. I would guess some Iraq War graft at the highest levels or maybe the very earliest signal these guys were a criminal cabal: Cheney’s ‘energy task force’ meeting. An audio recording of that would sink the dumbya ‘legacy’ forever. Obama’s acceptance speech hit dumbass and co pretty hard in their ‘legacy’.

    I just hope Obama lives up to the hope, er the hype… er… uh… both?

  82. enkidu Says:

    shcb, please do tell us when Obama is lying!
    I’d love to hear it ;-)

    or any of his minions (you’ll be plenty busy w HRC methinks)

  83. shcb Says:

    No, it just seems like Jayson and Stewart are getting in a little preemptive strike for future er… misstatements. If you read back, I haven’t been very critical of what Obama and his folks have planned, I understand the unions and socialists will be served and I will pay for it, that is the price you pay for losing in a democracy. But in the example Knarly gave I don’t see a lot wrong, why should I, not much has changed from Bush. I don’t remember Obama being opposed to the Patriot Act, but I do remember members of Congress being adamantly opposed to it so there is the rub. I don’t call people liars who aren’t and I’m not calling anyone a liar here. I’m just wondering how Obama is going to balance the paragraph above from the Homeland Security page with those members of congress and people like Steve who are somewhat single issue purists and couldn’t wait for liberals to run the show so this great intrusion into their privacy could be purged, one of those three players is going to get bloodied.

  84. knarlyknight Says:

    Yea, one of the three are going to be less than happy, but I still have faith that this new administration can find solutions that has something for all players since all parties, supposedly, have a common enemy(ies?).

    The old Bush/neocon/Texas hold ’em “all in” non-compromising politics are, hopefully, gone with good riddance.

    Doesn’t the Homeland Security page have a few paragraphs dedicated to protection of privacy and civil liberties? In any case I don’t place too much faith in those kinds of high level documents, the proof is in the implementation.

    NL – there’s a hilarious youtube about Obama’s lies (it’s meant to be serious, and was compiled by wome wwnj). The first is that Obama stated he would end the war and that is juxtaposed against him stating that more effort is needed in Afghanistan and the War on Terror. Conveniently failed to mention the war he was talking about in the first clip was Iraq. After about five such disingenuous charges I stopped watching and that was only about a tenth of the way through it.

    It’s alarming that shcb considers Iraq a victory. Hard to understand the criteria he’s using. Standard of living far below pre-war levels, Iran has infinitely more influence over the country, ethnic/religious segregation near complete and simmering civil war threatening to explode, infinitely more “terrorists” operating within Iraq, Americans unable to travel in the country without a heavily armed escort, etc. Maybe oil flow is back up to pre-war levels? Didn’t think so.

  85. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    No ,again, I’m not out here to get anybody on anything. shcb, you seemed to infer a lot from the inaugural address. I was saying just what I said ‘let’s wait and see, I’m not sure we can really infer much’ Unlike you I didn’t think it was (or wasn’t) something that may mean Patriot Act Plus. Stewart was saying Obama’s inaugural was similar to Bush’s second and I agreed with that. My comment about uniformity in statements made by leaders was just that, no did I say anything about whether it’s a lie or not. I said ‘sounds like the same stuff, let’s wait and see a bit.’

  86. shcb Says:

    You’ve always been pretty fair Jayson, but if Stewart said something similar I think he is laying groundwork for later, we’re going to see a lot of that with this administration, but we all know that going in, it is just another hurdle we have to get over.

    Knarly, get used to those videos, you just have to keep up on what is really happening, the reason I didn’t read or watch more than a few minutes of some of you guys’ posts is that in a few minutes you realize it is the same old thing and if you have already debunked it in your own mind there isn’t much reason to waste time.

    I will make this pledge, I will be fair to this administration and give them credit where it is due.

    do you want me to give my list of reasons for victory in Iraq? you can probably list them better than I, but I will if you want.

  87. knarlyknight Says:

    Thanks for asking, I got issue fatigue with you re: Iraq, so it’s best if I sit out for now. If you got any suggestions on you and I reaching an agreement on Iraq given our vast differences of opinion please let me know.

  88. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    shcb, we’ll see. Right now it seems that any comment that Obama makes that can be interpreted as more centrist leaning by Obama is cause for alarm on the part of MSNBC and John Stewart. That’s how I’m reading it. I also felt that Obama was probably going to be more centrist than the far left was comfortable with, again we’ll see if I’m right. I’m not wanting to lay odds on anything right now.

  89. shcb Says:

    Knarly, I think we’ve probably wore out Iraq unless something new comes up. This sea change is more fun anyway.


    yup, we’ll see. I’m really trying to keep my remarks tied to things Obama and his people have said or written and not get into his head much because you’re right, we just don’t know. I think congress is more predictable since most of them have a record and Obama doesn’t. In many ways that is where his opposition will come from that and the far left and far left press. oddly enough I think he would have been more successful if the Republicans could have held one house, it would have been easier for him to be more centrist. But now I sound like the guys who always have their team in the Super Bowl in preseason.

  90. shcb Says:


    there is no electable underline electable candidate left or right enough for the outer fringes

  91. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:


  92. knarlyknight Says:

    true now maybe, but George W was plenty radical enough for most wwnj’s.

  93. knarlyknight Says:

    Case in point, now that Bush is out the whistleblowers are talking , or as africa43 puts it:

    I highly suggest everyone who is looking at this clip rent a movie called, “The Lives of Others”. The movie, 1980’s East Berlin pre-wall down, the Stasi (secret Police) spied on a German playwright & his girlfriend, interesting scenario unfolds in the people’s lives and that of the person spying on them. The story is fiction, but secret spying was all too true.

    Bush/Cheney took their Actions straight from the German Fascist play book and turned the rule of law into the law of rules.

  94. shcb Says:

    Bush radical? please he is barely conservative. give me a law they broke, statute number please.

  95. enkidu Says:

    ahhhhh the memories…

    my fav

    I’m writing a new book “w: reign of error”

  96. knarlyknight Says:

    Shouldn’t have to, it’s fairly obvious. But if you insist, a quick Google search gives the following examples.

    A few, re Iraq:

    and here’s a few more re Torture:

  97. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb –
    Temporary slight change of topic: I’m wondering what your general thoughts are about this opinion piece in terms of where it fits on the economic conservatism vs. liberal scale?

    The topic should fit the American economic debate as much as Canada’s.
    The author was the founder of a far right Canadian federal party that morphed into the dying Conservative Party giving it new life and another chance at governing which it then realized.

    I’d say the ideas presented in the opinion piece are clearly just “right” of center, but not radical.

  98. shcb Says:

    I would agree, a little more than slightly right of center but not much, on a scale of 1 to 10 with radical left 0 and radical right 10 I would say 6.5, something like that. Just for reference. This is almost exactly what Rosen has been saying all along, Enky paints him as a flaming right winger because he read one editorial but he is really quite sensible I wish you could get him up there.

    I’ve always used the analogy that proper government is like a cowboy herding cattle, with the cattle being the economy. You want to get from point A to B. A good cowboy will get them moving in generally the right direction and keep them moving toward the destination but he for the most part lets them pick the exact path they want to go, and for the most part nature keeps them all together and moving at a nice pace. Every now and then one of them gets away from the herd and has to be forced into line. A bad cowboy tries to get them to all follow single file right down the middle of the path and of course eventually he gives up on most of them and ends up dragging two or three behind his horse. But there does have to be a cowboy, the cattle won’t move to point b without some guidance.

    So I don’t believe there is no role for government in economies, but the less it does the better. He mentions Milton Friedman. Friedman said that when government does what it is now doing you can expect inflation in 6 to 18 months. So now we have that to look forward to.

  99. knarlyknight Says:

    So we’re in agreement, I’d say about 6.5 too. Your cow herd analogy is about right, except that about 80 to 90% of the cows are of standard cow (un)intelligence and 10 to 20% of the herd are geniuses – twice as smart as the cowboy. Them smart cows don’t go to Pt. B, they sneak off to the Bahamas and the cowboy gets a lashing for losing bovines.

    I am expecting US inflation in a big way starting in about a year, with large (long overdue) US dollar depreciations coinciding or preceeding the rising inflation. Interest rates will have to be increased and then things will get really messy, making recent months look like the good times. (My crtainty over that doom and gloom scenario doesn’t scare me, because I am usually wrong!)

  100. shcb Says:

    I’m afraid you are right, it seems that is the cycle these things naturally go through, but my prognostications are probably as accurate as yours :-)

    BTW that is why the political parties (the cowboys) go through their cycles, if either side could figure out how to outsmart those 20% of the cows that are sipping rum drinks on a far away beach they wouldn’t get a lashing (voted out of office)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.