Dems turn out the lights on Republicans and lower oil prices

The best IT certifications material provider covers thousands of Certification Exams, such as Microsoft,Cisco, CompTIA, Oracle,IBM, Sun and other vendors

it examesIt is very importent, but definitely not a good .

An international panel of Microsoft Certified Partners for Learning Solutions discusses the fast-changing it training industry and customers' needs for ..

Stunning silver jewellery from tiffany, Gucci, Links of London; quality designer silver jewelry at online prices. We have silver Bracelets, Solid Silver ...

Shop creations of timeless beauty from cheap tiffany jewelrythat will be treasured always. You can buy cheap tiffany jewelry but high quality from us

العاب ستروبري شورت كيك
العاب رقص
العاب بنات
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب تلبيس
العاب اولاد
العاب براتز
العاب باربي

العاب طبخ
العاب مكياج وميك اب
العاب اطفال
العاب سيارات
العاب قص الشعر
العاب
العاب فلاش
العاب ماريو
العاب بنات
العاب g9g
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب طبخ
العاب اكشن
العاب سيارات
العاب باربي

العاب طبخ
العاب باربي
العاب بنات جديدة
العاب
موقع العاب
العاب سيارات
العاب سبيستون
العاب براتز
العاب اولاد
العاب بنات فقط
العاب قص شعر
العاب مجانيه
العاب ستروبري شورت كيك

العاب رقص
العاب بحرية
العاب زوارق
العاب جديدة

العاب فلة
العاب هانا مونتانا
يوتيوب
العاب
العاب بنات
girls games
العاب g9g
العاب براتز
العاب اولاد
hguhf
عيش سفارى
العاب تلبيس باربي
العاب براتس
العاب بنات شمس
يوتيوب
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب تلبيس

I remember this when it came out. The first listed signer is Edwin Teller - the father of the hydrogen bomb. I heard him speak 30 years ago. Did you know he proposed filtering sunlight in outer space to reduce the heat gain on the earth ... back in the late 80s. He _did_ know we would have to do something.

You need to be careful on linking two things together here. Being against the Kyoto agreement doesn't mean you agree with the non peer-reviewed fake National Academy of Science document attached to the petitionproject

You know the "letter" that is quoted in that document was published in a false attempt to appear to be legitimate - 'The OISM petition also came under fire for being deceptively
packaged: The petition was accompanied by an article purporting to debunk global warming that was formatted to look as though it had been published in the journal of the respected National Academy of Sciences. The resemblance was so close that the NAS issued a public statement that the OISM petition "does not reflect the conclusions of
expert reports of the Academy."'

Let me repeat that last sentence to be sure it is read -
"The resemblance was so close that the NAS issued a public statement that the OISM petition "does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html

This "document" was produced by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Sounds impressive. For a 8 person business located in Butler Building with a PO box for an address. Yea .. impressive. Wonder if I can get a mail order degree or bride from them ?

Funny story. I work in the same field as some of the people listed as Kansas signers. So today I tried to call the first 3 I could try to validate. One does not exist and the other person had no knowledge of a Kyoto treaty not signing anything for any organization - they contacted him just a few weeks ago. The third is retired and about 80 years old - not sure I really trust his view on the world in 10 years. ( contact me offline at for the details )

Did you know what you can learn about wind turbines if you read the icecap site ?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Hotairupourshorts.pdf
... 130-foot, 7-ton, bird-slicing blades. They operate at only 20-30% of rated capacity –
compared to 85% for coal, gas and nuclear plants – and provide little power during summer daytime
hours, when air-conditioning demand is highest, but winds are at low ebb.

Bird-slicing blades .. :)

Yet according to this government site coal plants can be as low as 30% and only with special processing reach 50% efficiency.
why the difference in the Icecap document ..
ahhh to make people who are unable to do further fact checking think coal ( 85% hah, the Holcomb plant wasn't even going to be _near_ that number ) was an efficient choice compared to wind or solar. Not!
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html

GE says their turbines generate power 80% of the time and full power 20% of the time and just work. I've seen them in action myself. They just work 24x7.

GrinchForPrez writes ...

Well, no, it's not 'screw you', it's 'live and let live', and when someone appears to become insistent that I must live their way, the American in me says 'no way'.
I had to check to see where I said you had to live my way. I did not. Not even sure I was close. However ... notice how society has changed about how fat people are viewed; how smokers are viewed. How about people who own HumVees ? Society is changing and it does have something to do with $4/gallon gas.
Editorial cartoons lampoon SUV owners - and the humour is present for more and more who are buying scooters and hybrids. ( Toyota and Honda can't even make enough for the US - Prius will be made here in 2 years and reportedly will be a plug-in-hybrid too. Driven by a Ford or Chevy/GM dealer lately ? How about a used car lot ... sitting on 50% truck inventory... Never gonna sell `em. Ford delaying their F150 ... Wow.
Society is changing.
I went on work/vacation 2 months ago to LA area. 1 Prius available. With 3 people I got over 50 mpg in mixed driving - 50 mpg. But I used to drive a Honda Insight and could get 64 or so mpg around LA.

GrinchForPrez writes ...

But that brings up another point - I have a standing wine cellar unit, used to keep wine cool (and humid) over a period of years. That uses energy. I can see the day coming when people begin demanding that I can only use energy for specific uses, and would classify that as a 'luxury' use and impose an energy surcharge, or else ban it outright. I am not kidding about this, or for example the use of hot tubs. Hey, they're already telling you what kind of lamps you'll be able to use and what kind of light bulbs, but I have gotten around that by buying a lifetime supply of incandescent bulbs very cheaply, so that I will never run out if I choose to keep using them in some or all of my lamps.

Hey, you can use all the power you want. As long as it does not cause power costs to increase or puts health and welfare at risk - which unfortunately it is doing both. Come back next year and tell me how your winter heating went and/or after the Pickens plan to use more natural gas moves forward.

Get some solar cells/wind turbines , get off the grid and consume away. You do understand that when the demand goes up the power companies have to build more plants. They have to hire more staff. They have to buy more coal. All of this costs money that we are charged.
Imagine however if people reduced their demand. Then the utility companies would not have to increase their rates and we _all_ would pay less. Now who wants to be the one who craps in the pool ? You ?

Can you tell us why you think anthropogenic global warming to be non-scientifically accepted? I have a feeling I will be reading something from the Weather Channel founder or Alexander Cockburn or any of the other well known deniers .

Every professional scientific organization in every related discipline recognizes human impacted global warming.
Every recognized charitable medical organization recognizes human impacted global warming.
If the America Petroleum Institute doesn't believe in human impacted global warming ya think that is kind of to be expected ?
Just like RJ Reynolds telling our parents that cigarettes were good for them ... right .... No bias there.

What possible bias does the AMA have in recognizing global warming ?

Sure even back in 2005 people wrote about deniers, what was incorrect with their logic back then is still incorrect -
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1318067.htm

You know that "that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide would trap the radiative energy of the sun within the earth's atmosphere and raise surface temperatures" was first mentioned in 1861 ? It is only now being recognized.

Refusing to open the email from the EPA about greenhouse gas being a pollutant doesn't make it not so, it just sounds so much like the Bush Administration thinks that if they cover their eyes we can't see them behaving stupidly. We can.

Bring on the deniers repertoir .

GrinchForPrez writes ...
In this case, you were badgering the other guy, insinuating through your questions that unless he had done all those things, somehow he has 'failed' in a sense, perhaps as a concerned human being
No, I was not. I was asking if before he asked for more fuel/energy had he consumed semi-wisely what had be given to him before. Yes I was suggesting that if he was just throwing away part of his energy especially in light of shortages causing real pain to many, many Americans he might want to examine his needs and usage first before just bellying up to the bar and demanding to be served more.

It just seems to be a fairness and courtesy in light of increased demand, increased cost and decreased availability that people who are sharing the country share the resources we all have.

Doesn't that sound right ?
Or do you think you have some higher dispensation that allows you an uneven allotment ? Even Ticketmaster limits the number of tickets you can buy.
My belief is that if we don't do it willingly now, we will do it unwillingly later and when that occurs it will not be a friendly or easily made choice. What do you think would happen if 1/2 of the oil the US uses were not available because China paid for it in advance.... Jan 1st 2009 ? China and India are a lot closer to the Middle East than we are. They are also a lot closer to Russia - another large oil producing country.

Heck, we can't even "fix" where we are now, let alone some new types of conflicts.

Denise Tiller, Midwest Voices Panelist 2008

It really doesn't matter how many acres of offshore sites we open for the oil companies, they don't have any available drilling rigs. All the rigs are booked for the next five years and it could be another five years before they produce oil. Republicans are just grandstanding. We've got time to talk about it, rushing into action has gotten us into all sorts of trouble, so let's get all the facts out on this.

Denise Tiller, Midwest Voices Panelist 2008

Yep.

And that article I linked below -- which I'll link again -- does an excellent job of addressing your questions, Ross, which are ripped from the deniers' playbook. As usual, you do a great job of parroting those right-wing talking points. It's no substitute for independent thought, but impressive nonetheless.

The IPCC concluded last year: "Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely (>90 percent) caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion takes into account ... the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models."

Scientists have come to understand that "forcings" (natural and human-made) explain most of the changes in our climate and temperature both in recent decades and over the past millions of years. The primary human-made forcings are the heat-trapping greenhouse gases we generate, particularly carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and natural gas. The natural forcings include fluctuations in the intensity of sunlight (which can increase or decrease warming), and major volcanoes that inject huge volumes of gases and aerosol particles into the stratosphere (which tend to block sunlight and cause cooling).

A 2002 study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences warned, "Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly." The rapidly growing greenhouse warming we ourselves are causing today thus increases the chances for "large, abrupt and unwelcome regional or global climatic events."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index1.html

and more, from same excellent article:

Studies compare every testable prediction from climate change theory and models (and suggested by paleoclimate research) to actual observations.

How many studies? Well, the IPCC's definitive treatment of the subject, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change," has 11 full pages of references, some 500 peer-reviewed studies. This is not a consensus of opinion. It is what scientific research and actual observations reveal.

And this one is aimed squarely at the likes of Grinch and Balano:

Ignoring all the evidence, doubters and deniers keep asserting that the cause of global warming isn't human emissions, but is instead natural forcings, primarily the sun. Last year, brief presidential candidate Fred Thompson commented on claims that planets like Mars were supposedly also warming -- an idea debunked by RealClimate. Thompson said sarcastically:

"I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn't even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There's a consensus. Ask Galileo."

The view that the sun is the source of observed global warming seems credible mainly to people who are open to believing that the entire scientific community has somehow, over a period of several decades, failed to adequately study, analyze and understand the most visible influence on the Earth's temperature. Such people typically cannot be influenced by the results of actual research and observations.

Pretty spot-on, wouldn't you say? :-)

One of the things that many of us strongly reject is the idea that the whole “man made global warming” thesis is settled science or proven fact. There is enough dissention among the scientific community to warrant skepticism. We cannot even be positive that the planet is indeed warming and not just in some warm cycle and will begin to cool again at some point.

For the sake of argument, even if we accept the premise that the earth is warming there are still a couple questions in many of our minds:

Can mankind actually affect the climate? We know that the earth has cooled and warmed many times over its history. How can we be sure that this isn’t just another example of that?

Who’s to say that the planet hasn't been too cool and that a few degrees warmer wouldn’t actual be normal? Can anyone say without a doubt that the earth wouldn’t be better off a few degrees warmer?

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

From a great little article posted on Salon.com:

One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists.

So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming."

As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus.

But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does "think global warming is real"). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea.

What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.html

Take that "petition project" website with a grain of salt. Grinch loves their kool-aid, but the less gullible and more skeptical among us might note that the "qualified scientists" include retired dentists and civil engineers with no relevant expertise in climatology. (I wonder if Grinch would go to a climatologist for a root canal)

http://midnightrider.blogivists.com/2008/07/10/petitionprojectorg-is-pure-horseshit/

Also note that just because a scientist's name is on a list doesn't mean that he or she put it there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Heartland_Institute.27s_list

Generally, a significant degree of skepticism should be levied when the likes of Grinch have to point to a list of people on the internet to bolster his faith that global warming is some sort of massive hoax dreamt up and propogated by every major scientific establishment in the world, not to mention that inconvenient data showing the strong correlation of ever increasing temperatures and our own actions in polluting the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Petitions