Dems turn out the lights on Republicans and lower oil prices

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

Start here - look through the different articles and links that they post:

http://www.icecap.us/

Also, and this is very, very important and the media for the most part has chosen to ignore them, over 31,000 scientists (over 9,000 of which have Ph.D.s), have signed their names to the following statement:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Have you read about this lately? If not, what does that tell you about the bias in media, because this information was actually disseminated to all media.

Here is the science behind the statement, as agreed to by the scientists in opposition to
anthropogenic global warming:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Article_HTML/Review_Article_HTML.html

Thank you for asking, by the way.

p.s. Thank you, Chazzy. I have to admit, though, that as long as one posts links that are valid to one's opinion, I have no problem. As long as the links have accurate information, that is.

I have enjoyed readying all 3 of your postings.

Mr. Chazzy,
Would you please post links or that do not support rjr opinion? Please pick periodicals that are available to the general reader.

Mr. Grinch,
Could you please post links for articles and science exposing the flaws in the global warming hysteria that is driving this. ?

Mr. Rjr,
It sounds like you are rewriting the ant and the grasshopper parable.

Friends and family are farmers in western Kansas. They are waiting to rent some of their land for wind farms and are feeling kind of like the ant among the grasshoppers.

Since you all dont like links to other sites I will print what my parents are experiencing.
60% higher fertilizer costs over 2006. 40% higher energy costs over 2006. 30% higher total production cost increase over 2006. Yes soybeans are double .. but they sure ain't putting more money in the bank after ADM and Cargill are done with their cut. Farmers can not just sell soy beans or corn by themselves. Kroger doesn't buy them that way.

I wish there was a store that they could go buy diesel at $2/gallon like they did in 2005. Or electricity was 5 cents not 10.

Nobody is buying the little acre lots either so when Manhattan annexes an extra hundred acres or so people can't just sell land to a builder or developer like they could in the past. Or when a city or county improve new roads ... Check out what Deffenbaugh trash is paying in Johnson county for a 1/2 mile road.

Imagine that your parents live down a 3/4 mile gravel county road. $$$

Grinch....thanks

I agree 100% with all you have to offer to the incredibly presumptuous, self righteous, netroot who posts under the rjr3 name.

He epitomizes much that is wrong with the enviro whacko movement. In addition to being just dead wrong, he chooses to judge all by his standard.....just like Gore....but, unlike the colossal hypocrite that is the goracal, he at least has the character and integrity to live by the standard that he preaches.....which I do respect.

I actually find you to be far more patient and tolerant of his misguided opinions than he deserves but I greatly appreciate your pathos, sense of humor, and willingness to invest time and energy to extract cogent, intellectual thinking without the obligatory, irritating netroot habit of posting links from sources that support your opinions.

Keep posting

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 am 100% certain that someone 'greener' than you believes you're not doing enough, and someone greener than them thinks the same, etc, etc. What I AM saying is the following - people should be able to decide for themselves whether they regard 'green', environmental or global warming claims as reasonable, choose what they personally wish to do in response to that, and leave others alone to do as they wish. I am saying that for myself, I consider anthropogenic global warming to be an unscientific, pseudo-religious, and fanatic-driven movement whose ultimate goal is to force people into adopting the beliefs of the acolytes, regardless of the lack of proof of their claims, because the environmentalists have been unable to impose their often extremists beliefs pre-global warming. Greenies and U.N. socialists have picked up on this and are attempting to correlate (it seems - lol) every activity of mankind to harm to the planet, either by invoking global warming or claiming 'harm' to the environment, without actually being concerned of proving it. They have moved past that as Al Gore has, categorically refuse to debate it claiming that the 'debate is over' which is totally contradictory to scientific method, and are now reacting almost purely emotionally to any disagreement.

Given this, I have come to a logical conclusion that each claim made must be evaluated on its own merits, and unless I can see enough proof of a claim, I ignore it.

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. In that respect, my reaction is and was that if a person can afford a given lifestyle that uses whatever energy he or she chooses REGARDLESS of how energy-inefficient their lifestyle is perceived by a greenie, than I'm fully comfortable with it. If they foolishly choose to run their air conditioner at 60 degrees F all summer long, they will pay for it. If they fail to tune their car up, that's their problem. The last thing I intend to do is allow greenies through the use of government intervention to legislate all of the aspects of our lives based on a flawed view of reality. In my case, I will go to certain lengths to save money (high-efficiency furnace, highly insulated house, reasonable air conditioner settings, tuneups, etc), but past that I will not because I don't have to financially. For example, I live in a large house - if I were to downsize to a studio apartment, I'm sure my energy and carbon footprints would be a lot smaller, but then I would have had to sell my hot tub, pool table, wine cellar unit and severely reduce my possessions to make room, which would then take a lot of the pleasure I enjoy from my life, all to satisfy someone's false beliefs (global warming) or political stance (conserve energy because we ain't drilling) So I don't.

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.

Let me know when you want me to start posting articles and science exposing the flaws in the global warming hysteria that is driving this.

Finally, I appreciate the fact that you can disagree with me and not turn completely vitriolic, because at the point that it happens either from you or me, the discussion ceases to become an interchange and degenerates into uselessness, and no one will learn a darn thing. Facetiousness and sarcasm are fine (in fact, sometimes essential), just attacking someone personally versus their arguments never leads anywhere.

Didn't ask you, but thanks. I appreciate hearing from a single person who figures screw the rest of you - I'm getting mine and the more I can get well.... darn it it's my place in life to be able to use all I can - I'm an American.

Washing machine - I figured everybody knew this but here is a recent Reuters post - http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS221979+08-Jan-2008+PRN20080108
Front loaders use less water, use less detergent, hold larger loads, use less electricity, spin better which equals less drying time. All-in-all more earth friendly, especially with kids - which I am guessing you don't have ( you sound self-centered ).
My homes association prohibits clothes lines.

I think your plumbing technician friend needs to get out around better equipment more often. My tankless warranty exceeds what I had for a "regular" heater. Winter freezing is no more a possibility than it might be with a conventional tank of water sitting in your basement. Exactly the same. If I were to go on vacation in the winter and I were concerned (not ever been an issue if 47 years, but thanks for your concern) I would drain the lines just as tankless companies recommend - no secret problems here.
Except for me it might be a quart or two, not 40 gallons like a regular heater. Whats the problem here ? Should I be fearful of Godzilla attacking my house in winter too ?

My desire is to save money too - I just happen to pick energy savings as a point to ponder because ... why not - it makes better products cost less over time.

And yes, you can spend more money with a tankless because mine will deliver 7 gallons of hot water for 1 hour. Yours will deliver it for 10 minutes max. Mine just happens to not be keeping water hot while I am out of town, at work or sleeping - yours does ... costing you money while doing so; that sounds so smart - "I am keeping my water heater hot while eating lunch or driving on 435 .... just in case I might need some at 2:30 pm., yeah - right".

Check http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/ask/tankless

I am trying to get solar panels to pre-heat the water. I know someone who has extra panels not in use. Thanks for reminding me.

Another benefit of tankless water heaters and high efficiency furnaces ( your furnace exhausts and breathes via PVC pipes - right ? else it's not high efficiency regardless of what your twice yearly maintenance people say - how much does that service cost you over 10 years ? I bet it equals the cost of my furnace ) is that I have no pipes sticking up through my roof so I won't ever get a leak or damaged flashing and it was easier to install - 2700 sq feet of flat surface.

I own diesel cars and make biodiesel from discarded restaurant oil - no fossil fuels required. Oh, I do use motor oil, but it is synthetic and I change it every 10K miles, not 3,000.

From one of your early comments - "because I have earned enough in the past and saved enough to be able to afford whatever gas I wish to use" pretty much sums up your approach to life"

You are single, have no children and dont expect to ... so the heck with anyone else other than yourself.

The rest of your point just reflect that over and over. Ask you grandparents what was rationing like.

Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling

Aug 1, 7:40 PM (ET)

By MIKE GLOVER

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

Asked about Obama's comment, McCain said, "We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage." The GOP candidate said Obama doesn't have a plan equal to the nation's energy challenges.

In Congress, both parties have fought bitterly over energy policy for weeks, with Republicans pressing for more domestic oil drilling and Democrats railing about oil company profits. Despite hundreds of hours of House and Senate floor debate, lawmakers will leave Washington for their five-week summer hiatus this week with an empty tank.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

Later, Obama issued a written statement warmly welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators - five from each party. Their proposal seeks to break the impasse over offshore oil development and is expected to be examined more closely in September after Congress returns from its summer recess.

The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 50 miles of Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.

Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.

The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Nevertheless, Obama said the plan, put forward by mostly moderates and conservatives led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., "represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning."

Earlier in the day, Obama pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to McCain's call for more offshore drilling.

The pitch for putting some of the economic burden of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the oil industry served a dual purpose for Obama: It allowed him to talk up an economic issue, seen by many as a strength for Democrats and a weakness for Republicans, and at the same time respond to criticism from McCain that Obama's opposition to offshore drilling leads to higher prices at the pump.

In linking McCain to the unpopular President Bush, Obama struck a theme from Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign against President Jimmy Carter by asking a town-hall audience in St. Petersburg: "Do you think you are better off than you were four years ago or eight years ago? If you aren't better off, can you afford another four years?"

Obama primed the crowd by noting new government figures showing 51,000 jobs lost last month and citing 460,000 jobs lost over the last seven months. He tied other bad economic news from the Bush administration to McCain and offered his energy program as one route to relief.

"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months," Obama said during a two-day campaign swing in Florida. "It will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills, or even to pay down your own debt."

My answers to rjr3's questions to Ross ... and by the way, the implicit assumption in your series of vapid questions is that the subject of the questions is anti-Earth if he/she doesn't answer to your preferred agenda. By what right or science do you think you can judge anyone by their answers to these questions?

But here's mine anyway...

What kind of cars or trucks do you drive?

I drive a 1993 Mitsubishi 3000GT. It's a beater now, but I paid it off in 3 years and it has had very few repairs. I have taken excellent care of it, though it only gets around 16 mpg now in the city. That's fine with me, because I have earned enough in the past and saved enough to be able to afford whatever gas I wish to use - that's called a 'free market'. If I couldn't afford it, then I would adjust my driving or even buy a different car, but that decision will not be mandated by some irrational, emotional, illogical plea to 'save the Earth' by someone completely unaware of reality. I love my car, it has an excellent eye-pleasing design, feels great when I'm sitting in the driver's seat cruising through traffic, and has always gotten me to my destination.

Question - why are you driving a vehicle of any kind??? Shouldn't you be using mass transit exclusively, riding a bike or walking? If you ARE driving even a hybrid, how can you live with yourself, knowing you are using fossil fuels to meet your selfish needs?

Have you replaced your furnace with a high efficiency unit?

When I bought my house in 1998 (I paid the mortgage off within three years), the prior owner had already installed a high efficiency unit. I have a contract with Beebe Heating and Air to service it twice a year, to ensure a good working order. I am happy I have it, because it saves me money, but I could not care less that I am 'saving' energy. Energy is only a commodity, but some people view it as some irreplaceable entity as if it's the lifeblood of Mother Earth. If you can afford it, like Al Gore who uses far more than his 'share', then I don't give a damn how much you use.

Question - why do you need a high efficiency furnace to heat your home? Why aren't you using solar panels or windmills with storage batteries? Why not use clumps of moss or hay to insulate your mud-thatched roof?

Do you have a tankless hot water heater minimizing natural gas and/or electric needs?

No. This past June, I asked a technician about those kinds of heaters, and he told me that they are a nightmare. Not only can they result in your utility bills going higher, but the maintenance of them can cause you a lot of grief, since when the power goes out in the winter they can freeze and be seriously damaged unless you take specific steps to prevent it. If you're on vacation when the power goes out, and it's for a decent length of time, you're screwed. So if the technician who installs the heaters tells me they are a huge problem, guess who I believe.

Besides, my only motivation for minimizing my energy needs is to save money, not to save energy. I don't live my life in the cold and dark so that I may brag to my enviro-Nazi friends how wonderful I am to the Earth.

Question - why do you need a hot water heater? Why not simply shower with cold water, wash your dishes with cold water, and simply use cold water for all your other needs? If you need warmer water, why not use a solar panel?

How about a front loader washing machine?

Lol - please. Even if it was more efficient, which you do not trouble yourself to quantify, who cares?

Question - why a front loader? Why don't you simply wash your clothes by hand and dry them outside on a line? Be sure to use a biodegradeable detergent approved by PETA.

Do you carpool - or work with your company to establish one?

Question - since cars are verboten in the new 'green' world, this is a trick question, yes? I mean, the environmentally sensitive would never stoop to use any vehicle powered by fossil fuels, correct? PLEASE TELL ME YOU DON'T!!!!

How about riding the bus, riding a bike or walking - you do live close to your work so you minimize you fuel requirements ... right ?

Is this where you throw a widdle tantrum and demand that everyone do as you do? Gee - let's see, a lot of us live far away from work, by choice, because where we live is a lot safer for us and our children, and also suits what we're looking for - peace and quiet and room to live. When we have to go to work, we actually enjoy driving our own cars on our own schedule to work. We may choose to carpool or we may not. We may also detest riding public transit, due to the rigid schedule and the unpredictability of the buses, not to mention the riders. In other words, we may like the option not to share our 'personal space' - is that politically correct enough for you? I hate to break the news to you, but our lives are not based on minimizing our fuel requirements - if anything, we'd be perfectly happy to maximize them. If your life revolves around that requirement, I feel bad for you.

Question - does your life revolve around your minimizing your fuel requirements?

How about recycling ? Glass too ? Do you take your neighbors glass to the recycling center when you make your monthly drop off because the local trash hauler doesn't pick up glass ?

Lol - so recycling is now a hallmark of one's morality. What moral pulpit did you appropriate for this BS, anyway?

Tell us please about your sacrifices for energy.

If anyone ever needed a clearer picture of the stupidity involved with this movement, this should do it. 'Sacrifices for energy' - what the hell does that mean, anyway? Are you saying that we should be sacrificing something in our lives in the name of saving energy? To what purpose? You cannot honestly believe that the supply of energy is somehow finite to the point of running out in a few hundred years, can you? There is a huge amount of fossil fuels of all kinds left, as well as nuclear, and of course wind and solar whenever that becomes economically viable. Do you expect people to sacrifice their standards of living to some mystic god of Energy???

In conclusion, thank you for voicing the vapidness that surrounds the movement led by the Democrats. It was very instructive.

It might be easier to follow your writing if you used proper names. I don't know of any Barry McCains.

I'm almost 50. Potential oil offshore won't impact any car I'll ever drive. And I'd rather save it - if it existed - for when we really need it - like when our children start to freeze because of our stupid beliefs that we need to plunder all the resources in our lifetime.

What if scientists can't engineer a replacement - we can't even get people to reduce their trash and you have to be clueless to not know recycling takes less energy ( fuel created energy ).

Ahhh... I got it ... you just want to waste stuff.

RJR

Did you see where your your boy Barry finally made a shrewd move.....he wants to compromise on off shore drilling .....guess you can add Queen Nan to wright, flegler, and grand mama to the increasingly long list of under the bus tossses.

Such a principled man.

Since you are fired up on drilling for oil and dropping those pesky gas prices - never mind that the US consumes 1/3 of the oil - what kind of cars or trucks do you drive ?

Have you replaced your furnace with a high efficiency unit and do you have a tankless hot water heater minimizing natural gas and/or electric needs ? How about a front loader washing machine ?

Do you carpool - or work with your company to establish one ? How about riding the bus, riding a bike or walking - you do live close to your work so you minimize you fuel requirements ... right ?

How about recycling ? Glass too ? Do you take your neightbors glass to the recycling center when you make your monthly drop off because the local trash hauler doesn't pick up glass ?

Tell us please about your sacrifices for energy.

Personal disclosure from me -
I use biodiesel and do all of the above and have added extra insulation to my attic as well - According to KCPL I am using 30% less electricity this year over last year. I would like the bus to be a little more convenient but that is ok - according to the IRS I save over $10/day when I take the bus.

chazzy ,,

have you ever had a boss who brought you work at 4:30 in the afternoon and then complained when you told him you were going home at 5 just like you have for the last 200 years ?

Same thing here. Except the republicans don't even have real fake work to make you do - they just wanna look like they can still think of valid things to do for the country ... Hey ,,, hows that terror war going. Or that search for Bin Laden, Whoa ... we must have deported all illegal aliens and figured out world hunger to boot as well. get real. Paris Hilton doesn't pout or pretend half as well.

What actually happened, of course, was that the House adjourned for its August recess. As scheduled. Just like it does every year. Presumably it was scheduled months in advance. Everyone knew it.

Except this time the minority party refused to, you know, leave. Though the government is not in session, the Republicans insist on hanging around anyway.

Why? Not to get any work done. They're sticking around in the hopes of getting some press simply for being stupid.

It may work. If the Democrats did this, the media would be happy to portray them as whiny little losers who didn't know when to go home. (Which would basically be accurate.)

moronic.

And the issue the GOP is demagoguing is gasoline prices and offshore drilling. This pushes today's stunt from ridiculous to pathetic. The Department of Energy's official projection [nytimes.com] is that if offshore drilling were legalized immediately, "any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant" -- even in 2030.

And that's an inflated stat, since its numbers include hypothetical drilling off the coast of California. The GOP is pushing to allow states to allow OCS drilling if they choose -- "states' rights," as the slogan goes. And California's politicians, including its Republican governor, have made it clear the state will not allow more drilling off its coast. So the actual benefit of the current GOP proposal would be about 2/3 of the DoE's hypothetical. In 2030 :)

It's hard to believe that the Republicans would hang around a vacated government building after everyone's gone home, and yell into a bullhorn about how Congress needs to debate lower gas prices right now -- not in September! -- when Bush's own Department of Energy admits any changes would have zero effect on oil prices for 9 years and "insignificant" effect after that.

The GOP's twitter feed [twitter.com] indicates their dogma du jour is: "drill here drill now to get us through the next 10 to 15 years." Again, the DoE's projections indicate zero effect on oil production or prices for the next 9 years, and "insignificant" effect after that.

The value of crude oil has gone up considerably in the last 10 years. All the oil that was not pumped out of the ground under the U.S. and burned in the last decade is now much more valuable, and if you can avoid pumping and burning it for another 10 years then it will be still more valuable.

Given that Americans are handing huge bills to future generations, including a $10 trillion debt and another $80 trillion in unfunded liabilities (Medicare, Social Security), it is nice that some valuable resources can be passed on too. It is unfortunate that many Americans seem to think "If we don't drill and burn this crude oil now, *I* won't benefit from it! Drill Drill Drill, Burn Burn Burn! It's MY crude oil and I want to BURN it NOW!"

just get dumber and dumber. Holy cow. Rather than work on solutions to this problem, they'd rather hew to the status quo.

She KNOWS she's got the short stick on this issue and is stuck between a rock and a hard place. This is a unique opportunity for Mccain to capitalize on .....but he won't

The philosophical and financial backbone of the Democrat party is the activist left who dictate far more influence on them than do the lobbyists on the repubs. She must placate the netroots while Obama tries to "sell" his newfound centrist position to the independent voters in the middle.....which he must do to win......tough battleground.

Her only prayer is to avoid the issue, hence the righteous indignation. If the middle 50% who vote independently see the truth of the democrats position then they greatly endanger the November outcomes.

I expect and hope that the gamble costs both her and the party as it should.

I fear that all the dems are, like Obama, more interested in winning than in doing what is clearly and obviously in the best interests of America......but, boy will it really be fun watching the maneuvers play out.

ask Pelosi what impact she has over Ford building 12 mpg F150s. Dumb Ford
ask Pelosi what impact she has over GM building 15 mpg Suburbans. Dumb GM
ask Pelosi what impact she has over Cadillac building 13 mpg Escalades. Dumb Cadillac.
ask Pelosi what impact she has over GM not building electric cars. Dumb GM
ask Pelosi what impact she has over Toyota building 55mpg Priuses. Smart Toyota.

Are you bitching about gas ?
My guess is that _you_ own a stupid car and drive it poorly. You are probably reaping what you sowed.

Toyota and Honda have made highly efficient cars for 20 years. Johnson county soccer moms chose not to buy them. Walmart delivers by truck not train. People ship clothing FedEx overnight not via slow UPS.

You are enjoying the fruit of your efforts.
Learn to live with it.

It isn't just drilling for more domestic oil, although that is one component of the issue.

Pelosi and her gang have the attitute 'my way or the highway'. She has shown absolutely no leadership on the energy issue. She chooses, rather, to be totally partisian on this issue, just as she has on many other issues. I seem to recall after the last election that the democrats were saying how they were going to work across the isle to reach reasonable compromises on major issues facing this country.

The truth comes out -- Pelosi has no interest in problems facing America. And what really bothers me is what will happen if we get a democratic president to back her up. If we have nothing now, just wait if we are unfortune enough to see that come to pass.