"We've for generations taken it out of the earth, taken carbon out of the earth and put it into the atmosphere ..."Where did the fossils in those fossil fuels come from Harry?
As early as 1934, TM's managers were fielding citizens' requests to replace "the present cumbersome and noisy street cars" with trackless trolleys. As the requests piled up, the electric streetcar, long described as "the sturdy backbone of the transit system," became an endangered species , a situation with disastrous financial implications. Rail & Wire published an upper-case lament:And ...
The public, after being carried back and forth by electric railway cars for half a century, is turning its back on the street railway car and is demanding rubber-tired transportation equipment. Owners of property along the street railway lines join the car riders in demanding this replacement by rubber-tired service, LONG BEFORE THE USEFUL LIFE OF RAILS, TROLLEYS AND RAIL CARS HAS BEEN USED UP.
- Path of a Pioneer by John Gurda
In 1948, when trackless trolley service came to North Third Street, Rail & Wire praised the demise of the "outmoded" streetcars that "caused passengers and motorists delays and annoyance." Roy Pinkley, head of the transit system since 1925 described the steel-wheeled car as an anachronism. "It has long been demonstrated," he wrote in 1952, "that street cars do not belong in modern traffic."Sixty years later and the light rail crowd ignores this history.
- Gurda
If the transportation nightmare caused by the flood-related closing of Interstate 94 proves anything it is that car and truck transportation is a region’s economic and social lifeline. When "you can’t get there from here" becomes reality, it not only inconveniences hundreds of thousands of people, it can disrupt businesses and put communities in chaos (how would you like to live on the Highway 83 "detour" right now?).Belling's tipsters failed him this time. He does not address one other aspect of the flood that makes train travel an even bigger loser. As demonstrated by the response to high water along I-94, car and truck travel can be inconveniently diverted to other roads so travel can be completed. Not so with rail.
To commemorate the 20th anniversary of NASA scientist James Hansen’s Congressional global warming testimony, Warren Meyer posted the above slide from Hansen. Added by Warren to the plot are the actual average global temperatures recorded since the 1988 testimony (the green data series) to show how poorly Hansen’s 1988 projections are reflected by the real temperature record.
I have also superimposed NOAA's measured atmospheric CO2 measurements from 1958 to 2007 that were posted recently by Anthony Watts (the cyan and red line).
A couple of points stand out to me.
The main point to be made here is that the expected global warming is of the same magnitude as the observed warming. Since there is only a 1 percent chance of an accidental warming of this magnitude, the agreement with the expected greenhouse effect is of considerable significance.
It should be noted that the superimposed actual CO2 plot tracks Hansen's projected 1988 to 2008 worst case plot fairly closely.
However, his projections of temperatures after 1988 show that his model broke down almost precisely when he testified. This could be due to a saturation effect for CO2 at that level or (more likely) shows Hansen got lucky (that "only a 1 percent chance of an accidental warming" did happen) with his early model applied from 1964 through 1988. There may really be nothing there, except a coincidence.
The other point was first made by Meyer.
Yes, 2008 has been far colder than 1988. We have seen no warming trend in the last 10 years, and temperatures have undershot every one of Hansen's forecasts. He thought the world would be a degree C warmer in 20 years, and it is not. Of course, today, he says the world will warm a degree in the next 20 years -- the apocalypse never goes away, it just recesses into the future.
I’ll add that there was indeed a modest amount of global warming from 1988 to 2001, with a plateau through 2006 that was about 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than 1988. But global temperatures have since declined. Declined so much that the average global temperature is now 0.2 degrees Celsius less than 1988, not the 0.7 degrees higher that Hansen predicted. A difference of minus 9 tenths of a degree Celsius.
Hansen learned from his earlier testimony, no predictions in 2008. Just calls for prosecution of those that do not buy Dr. Hansen's groupthink."In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than right here at Yucca Mountain."Which is his way of saying "No Nukes!" By the way, it is Mr. Obama and his party who are blocking the opening of Yucca Mountain.
On the tour we were able to witness debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. As best as I can figure it, the debate had the gentleman from Georgia in favor of expanding leases for oil drilling on federal lands and the gentleman from Guam (actually a woman) in favor of some law having to do with biting monkeys. I am not smart enough to really understand any of it.
After witnessing this fiasco, I conclude that the U.S. House of Representatives is no longer a serious institution. Our founding fathers would be embarrassed to see what has become of their experiment in self governance.
There is a solution. Eliminate the element of demand related to the inefficient use of corn as a motor fuel. Prices will decline.Six weeks of rain have flooded untold acres of corn and soybean fields in the U.S. heartland, forcing farmers to abandon their crops and sending international food prices skyward. More bad weather is expected for Illinois, Indiana and Ohio on Thursday, forecasters say, meaning prices may could climb higher.
Corn for July delivery rose 5.75 cents to settle at $7.09 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade, after earlier rising to a new all-time high of $7.25 a bushel. It was corn's sixth straight trading record in as many days. Prices broke past the $7 barrier for the first time Wednesday.
Prices for the corn in the ground now jumped even higher. Corn for December delivery soared to a record $7.55 a bushel on the CBOT before falling back to settle at $7.395, still up 6.75 cents.
...But corn's spike has raised questions as to how long demand will support the unprecedented price levels. Livestock owners will likely be forced to slaughter more cattle, hogs and chickens to cope with rocketing corn-based animal feed, and ethanol producers who use corn as their main feedstock will also suffer.
"This is a price level here where I don't see a sector that can afford it," Ward said. "The livestock sector cannot afford the corn at this price, the ethanol producer cannot afford it and the dairy producer cannot afford it."
When investigating America’s assortment of energy problems, a common theme starts to emerge: the more you look around, the more you’ll find government taxes, regulations, and subsidies that distort the market, raise prices, and increase our dependence on dictators thousands of miles away.Read the entire column by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison at NRO.
In May, I joined my Senate Republican colleagues to introduce legislation that would go a long way toward solving our energy problems. How? By increasing the supply through development of our own natural resources. Our bill, The American Energy Production Act of 2008, will remove unnecessary government barriers to domestic energy production.
The most obvious example of unnecessary federal interference is the ban on oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Despite its lofty name, ANWR is not all a pristine Eden. Rather, the area that would be drilled is a frozen tundra where temperatures can reach 70 degrees below zero in the winter. As even the Washington Post admitted, ANWR “is one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other where drilling would have less impact on the surrounding life.” In 1995, the Republican Congress passed legislation to open ANWR — which is estimated to contain 10.4 billion barrels of oil — for energy production. But President Clinton vetoed our bill. If he had signed it, today America would be producing almost enough oil to replace all of our daily imports from Saudi Arabia. By consistently blocking ANWR production, we are failing to help America become less dependent on foreign imports for basic economic needs.
But the problem goes beyond ANWR. Current federal law prevents oil and gas production in the deepwaters off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. These laws, which were first passed in 1981 when the price of oil was $35 per barrel, were a luxury at the time, but today, given America’s growing energy needs, they are indefensible. The fact is, these areas, along with another energy-rich section of the Gulf of Mexico, could contain as much as 115 billion barrels of oil — which is greater than Venezuela’s current reserves — and 565 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — which is greater than the combined reserves of Iraq, China, Yemen, Oman, Nigeria, and Venezuela. Federal laws also prevent us from exploiting one trillion barrels of shale oil in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah — an amazing amount that is three times what Saudi Arabia has on reserve. Our bill, the American Energy Production Act of 2008, would allow us to tap these resources with environmental safeguards.
As conservatives, we must unite to repeal one of the most misguided policies of the last decade — government mandates to increase the production of corn-based ethanol. These policies — which give incentives to farmers to divert their plantings from other crops to corn in order to produce ethanol — have been robbing the world of one of its most important sources of food.
I was going to research the number of visitors to GCNP and ANWR, but one of Rich Lowry's readers beat me to it.
Pristine natural wonder
Pristine mosquito-infested bog
5,000,000
886
Drilling in ANWR would be like drilling in the Grand Canyon? The Grand Canyon averages five million visitors a year. The highest number of visitors to the whole of ANWR was in 1990 and it was 886! (from 2003 Report to Congress, Interior Dept). Just who's gonna be deprived of this miniscule bit of pristineness that Maverick wants to preserve?Come on McCain, give me one reason to vote for you. Other than, "I'm not Obama."
What they'll say is, "Well it costs too much money," but you know what?
It would cost, about... It -- it -- it would cost about the same as what we would spend... It... Over the course of 10 years it would cost what it would costs us... It -- it (nervous laugh)
All right. Okay. We're going to...
It... It would cost us about the same as it would cost for about -- hold on one second. I can't hear myself. But I'm glad you're fired up, though. I'm glad... (nervous laugh).
TOKYO - The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.I've got news for the Paris-based IEA: It ain't gonna happen.
The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.
1. The group should be made aware of the causes and consequences of group think.
2. The leader should be neutral when assigning a policy-making task to a group, initially withholding all preferences and expectations. This practice will be especially effective if the leaders consistently encourages an atmosphere of open inquiry.
3. The leader should give high priority to airing objections and doubts, and be accepting of criticism.
4. Groups should always consider unpopular alternatives, assigning the role of devil's advocate to several strong members of the group.
5. Sometimes it is useful to divide the group into two separate deliberative bodies as feasibilities are evaluated.
6. Spend a sizable amount of time considering all warning signals from rival group and organizations.
7. After reaching a preliminary consensus on a decision, all residual doubts should be expressed and the matter reconsidered.
8. Outside experts should be included in vital decision making.
9. Tentative decisions should be discussed with trusted colleagues not in the decision-making group.
Why Did Obama Pay Rezko an Extra $64,000 For That Strip of Land?The above query was posted today at The Campaign Spot. I look at it the other way.But will he return the land that he bought from Rezko?
I can hear it now. "But Jim, this isn't a donation from Rezko to Obama," because the senator bought the land for a lot more than it was worth — "an appraiser valued the slice of land Rezko sold at $40,500, Obama decided it would be fair to pay Rezko substantially more: one sixth of his original purchase price, or $104,000."
Precisely. Rezko "widely known to be under federal investigation at the time." Paying substantially more than the land was appraised creates the appearance of a $64,000 payment to a person who, if found guilty, could discuss his longtime association and business dealings with a U.S. senator with federal law enforcement.
Barack: To the victor, belongs the spoils.
Hillary: Why don't you get the (heck) out of here, before I shove your quotation book up your ...
1. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious deficiencies (their climate models don’t work), take extreme positions (a 20 foot rise in sea level), and are overly confident in their position (the IPCC’s steadfast position in the face of a cooling planet).
2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away any positions contrary to group thinking (only deniers and flat-earthers (and now daughter rapists) disagree with them).
3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions (the solution is worse than the problem: Cap & Trade will kill global economy with the poor hit hardest; ethanol = starvation; and other much worse consequences of these tunnel vision solutions to follow).
4. Excessive Stereotyping: The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group (GW deniers are the house n-words of Big Oil).
5. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty (conflicting voices are not invited to climate change conferences and cannot get their research funded or published).
6. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments (the Medieval warm period was washed from the “hockey-stick” data set).
7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent (Al Gore says the scientific consensus is unanimous, never mind those 31,000 deniers).
8. Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency (Al Gore defines this characteristic).
10 CFR Part 50.59 provides the regulatory framework for addressing changes to commercial nuclear plants. The following questions must be addressed in evaluating engineering changes to a nuke plant.
(i) Result in more than a minimal increase in the frequency of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in the final safety analysis report (as updated);
(ii) Result in more than a minimal increase in the likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction of a structure, system, or component (SSC) important to safety previously evaluated in the final safety analysis report (as updated);
(iii) Result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the final safety analysis report (as updated);
(iv) Result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences of a malfunction of an SSC important to safety previously evaluated in the final safety analysis report (as updated);
(v) Create a possibility for an accident of a different type than any previously evaluated in the final safety analysis report (as updated);
(vi) Create a possibility for a malfunction of an SSC important to safety with a different result than any previously evaluated in the final safety analysis report (as updated);
(vii) Result in a design basis limit for a fission product barrier as described in the FSAR (as updated) being exceeded or altered; or
(viii) Result in a departure from a method of evaluation described in the FSAR (as updated) used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses.
Nothing approaching this level of rigor is applied to the knee-jerk solutions to a climate change problem which may not exist, or may be an environmental benefit under some criteria. Global Warming/Climate Change Groupthink has made it unnecessary to perform any rigorous analytical thinking before decisions are made.
One other thing. If you get locked into groupthink in the nuclear power business, you may just find your name listed here some day. On the other hand, Global Warming Groupthinkers may get listed with other Nobel Peace Prize winners.
