High Gas Prices Result of Huge U.S. Oil/Gas Exports; New Drilling/Pipelines Obviously Not Meant for U.S.

 

U.S. oil and gas exports are at their highest in 62 years! http://sfgate.bloomberg.com/SFChronicle/ Story?docId=1376-M03ZSG0YHQ0X01-5JR0G692MBGTE60AIHP5SP9EJ8.  Demand for oil/gas from foreign countries has increased tremendously while the U.S. has drastically reduced demand over a short period of time. What does this mean? It means that the big push to open up drilling in pristine Arctic wildlife areas, or to abscond land from private citizens in order to run a new pipeline, or the rounding up and slaughter of our free range wild mustangs, bison, wolves, etc., in order to clear them from the land like scooping up garbage instead of living creatures has nothing at all to do with our own energy welfare but for foreign countries.  It means we’ve pretty much gained energy independence from terrorist nations.  It means that we’re not running out of oil for our own consumption or that we need to drill baby drill. It simply has to do with big oil supplying that which we no longer need to foreign nations for big profits because there is demand out there. And when supply keeps up with increasing demand prices go up everywhere. It’s economics 101 http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics /economics3.asp#axzz1ny6hzw4F plain and simple that has little to do with us, except the fact we pay for it dearly at the pumps, while we still subsidize big oil. http://thinkprogress.org/green /2012/03/01/436001/obama-tells-congress-to-eliminate-outrageous-big-oil-tax-breaks/.

Now do we understand why there is such an outrage among some of us over subsidies, over the destruction of wildlife, and over the destruction of land for drilling/pipelines for a private, wealthy industry like big oil? Subsidies are taxpayer dollars to help big oil find new places to drill, places we do not want them to drill, places we do not want pipelines, yet we help these mega, mega rich private entities with our money. Feels like some sort of investment to me. We helped the U.S. auto industry out one time with a finite sum of money, most of which has been paid back, but not before there was a huge outcry that we’d better get it back and we shouldn’t have done that. Yet our taxpayer dollars consistently fund big, mega rich entities like big Ag and big Oil. Our payback right now from big oil is a continual increase in gas prices at the pumps. One would think that we should have some say so over that. Oh that’s right in most of the commercials about taxing big oil, or stopping subsidies, the people on the street remark, “Oh, don’t do that. That would mean a big increase for us and we can’t afford it.” So who’s the bully here and why is the bully so free to raise prices whenever? Oh that’s right too, we’re told those pesky government regulations/interference hinder big business and jobs. What’s happening at the gas pumps is what unfettered capitalism looks like. If Obama stepped in on our behalf, all hell would break lose. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2012/01/oil-lobbyist-publicly-warns-president-obama-xl-pipeline-or-lose-presidency/.

Now that we’ve seen the proof that there is enough U.S. oil/gas to export so much of it, we must also be aware that any new pipelines from new sources of oil, like Canada’s tar sands via the XL pipeline, isn’t destined for us either. As I explained in another blog the XL pipeline will be carrying filthy tar sands to China mostly http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2011/11/xl-pipeline-looks-to-be-a-good-deal-for-china-not-americans-alternate-route-through-british-columbia-being-considered/.  It will cause demand for the stuff to go sky high, with a huge supply in the waiting, and we’ll see another hike at the pumps.

It’s almost as if this is big oil’s payback to us for declining use of their product for environmental reasons. It looks that way in congress too with lackeys for big oil stifling any incentives for wind projects even though wind looked like the most promising alternative for the U.S.  The U.S. mid-section is a corridor of constant wind, as well as, our huge shoreline. But congress stifled wind subsidies/incentives http://www.democraticunderground.com/101454189. And solar, well, solar is quiet right now after the dragging of feet to get Solyndra going before China flooded the market with their cheap, incomparable products http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2012/01/solyndra-a-model-of-why-the-u-s-wont-be-a-contender-in-the-new-world-order/.  All of these scenarios–threatening commercials to raise prices if subsidies decline or taxation increases, stamping out the competition through congress, and creating more and more demand abroad, look as if we’re being coerced back to using oil. And if demand for our oil gets too outrageous, a shortage crisis will emerge—MARK MY WORDS—where it will be imperative that we drill everywhere and anywhere. We will be told our own resources are dwindling and there just aren’t enough alternatives to take up the slack. What a setup. If incentives to create and nurture a new green sector for the U.S. are cut out of the picture what choice will we have though? Looks like a plan to me.

Throughout my previous blogs I made comments about the progression of control I was seeing relative to energy and the environment. I began in the Bush era by saying, “The kings are polishing their crowns. From there it was, “The kings have donned their crowns but just haven’t announced it yet.”  When SCOTUS announced corporations are considered citizens, my comment was, “This is the announcement (new kings).” Now we’re seeing a little more clearly those that are sporting crowns and one of them is big oil, king and ruler of U.S. energy, whether we want to move away from it or not.

Read more about U.S. oil exports:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/30/column-us-exports-energy-independence-idUSL5E7MU6OT20111130

 

 

Share

Solyndra a Model of Why the U.S. Won’t Be a Contender in the New World Order

Going green has lost quite a bit if traction in the U.S. because of some really outrageous spin and it would appear the oil/gas industry and their lackey’s in congress to be the culprits. Despite the fact we can see climate change with our own eyes, and that some of the giants in the oil industry admitted greenhouse gas contributes to climate change, we’re heading toward more fossil fuel production with gas fracking and tar sands oil at the top of the list. Friends of fossil fuel have jumped on the Solyndra bandwagon of failure as some sort of omen that green start-ups are too risky, and therefore, unworthy business models in the U.S. during a time of renewed “drill and frack” mentality. But Solyndra is a model of a much more ominous nature. Solyndra’s failure is not due to an innovation that had no place in the market, or mishandling of funds, or was too costly compared to the competition, or because it was a vehicle of some underhanded exchange of money for political gain. While conspiracies abound around the name “Solyndra” the biggest problem Solyndra had to overcome was CHINA, one of the four new and fastest growing world economies. No the U.S. is not on that short list.  We’ll never make it at all if we continue on the path of fossil fuel for energy and stall moving forward quickly with green innovation.

Don’t get me wrong. China is indeed destined to get most of that tar sand oil from Canada, and so it is in the big fossil fuel burning category of nations. But China also continues to be a mixed bag for its energy sources and moving more and more quickly into the green foray. China recently emerged as KING of solar panel producers exporting its solar panel wares worldwide in numbers far greater than its competitors. But how did this happen you say and so quickly? And how come a company like Solyndra that barely came out of the ground went under so quickly? Surely there was a market for solar just look at China.

Just about all the reporting relative to Solyndra from ABC, to Fox, to numerous websites has been false and totally out of context, the main one being that it is Obama’s baby. Truth is Solyndra began in 2005 with a sound standing in the field of solar panels. Solyndra was the leader in innovation for solar. While standard solar panels look like flat screen monitors and utilize costly silicon in their photovoltaics (sun’s energy converted to direct current), Solyndra’s solar panels sported a tubular design that didn’t utilize silicon chips at all.

Solyndra’s solar panels are made up of 40 individual modules, wired in parallel for high current, which capture sunlight across a 360-degree photovoltaic surface capable of converting direct, diffuse and reflected sunlight into electricity. Using innovative cylindrical copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS modules) and thin-film technology, Solyndra systems are designed to be able to provide the lowest system installation costs on a per watt basis for the commercial rooftop market. More than 1000 Solyndra systems are installed around the world, representing nearly 100 Megawatts.

Lightweight: Low Distributed Load of 2.8 lbs. per Square Foot

Designed to Last for More than 25 Years

Easier and Cheaper Installation

Superior Wind Performance: Ideal for Windy Locations

Greater and More Effective Rooftop Coverage

Design Keeps Panels and Roofs Cooler

http://www.solyndra.com/technology-products/

From 2005 to late 2009, Solyndra panels were in the ballpark cost wise with standard solar panel manufacturers. Solyndra’s  founder  Dr. Christian Gronet earned a Ph.D. in semiconductor processing and a bachelor of science degree in Materials Science from Stanford University and was Vice President and General Manager of the Transistor, Capacitor and Gate product group at Applied Materials for 11 years. http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=54334387&privcapId=33681528.   According to their website, “Applied Materials is the global leader in providing innovative equipment, services, and software to the semiconductor, flat panel display, and solar photovoltaic industries. http://www.appliedmaterials.com/.

Solyndra had no problem raising over $78 million in venture capital quickly. From Climate Progress and verified by the DOE: “Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.”

Funding came from the Right, the Left, and everywhere in between.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/13/317594/timeline-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee/

At about the same time Solyndra began, the Bush Administration’s Energy Policy Act of 2005 was initiated. Section 1703 seemed an ideal match for a company like Solyndra as follows: “Section 1703 of Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy to support innovative clean energy technologies that are typically unable to obtain conventional private financing due to high technology risks.” https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=39. The emphasis here is on the word “risk.”

In 2006, Solyndra applied for a DOE loan under Section 1703. Late 2007 the loan program was funded and Solyndra was on the list for a loan. According to Energy Sec’y Sam Bodman at that time: “The Energy Department had received 143 pre-applications for the guarantees and narrowed the list down to 16 finalists — including Solyndra.” Why was Solyndra mentioned that way, as if singled out? According to WashingtonMonthly.com, “Bush’s Energy Department apparently adjusted its regulations to make sure that Solyndra would be eligible for the guarantees. It hadn’t originally contemplated including the photovoltaic-panel manufacturing that Solyndra did but changed the regulation before it was finalized. The only project that benefited was Solyndra’s.” Hmmm—heavy Republican investors or what? The Bush Administration, as I often blogged about back then, was not exactly green by any stretch of the word. However, it was late 2007 and 2008 meant a new presidential race. Being able to tout investment in alternative energy might appeal to some independent voters. Whatever the case, this loan program and its admittance of Solyndra on the list was a decision made during the Bush Administration.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/solyndras_republican_paternity032460.php

By 2008, Solyndra planned on building 2 new facilities in the U.S., and private investment in Solyndra reached an accumulated $450 million. It still looked like a great venture. Prices for silicon remained high and Solyndra’s costs were still competitive. But by late 2008, the loan still hadn’t been approved. According to themoderatevoice.com:

January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE “without prejudice” because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment.

March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.

Once taxpayer money was involved, the Obama administration was reluctant to let Solyndra fail.

http://themoderatevoice.com/122532/solyndra-and-bush/

Cleantechnica.com reported:

June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV (photovoltaics) wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV (photovoltaic) prices drop more than 50%.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/15/solyndra-advanced-by-bush-for-2-years-solyndra-timeline/

Some reports suggested that President Obama was warned several times via email that the deal was risky. On the contrary, Media Matters stated:

There was no email to Obama that the deal wasn’t ready for prime time relative to financial risk. Instead Email Concerned Timing Of Announcement, Not The Merit Of The Loan Guarantee.[] The email argued that ‘This deal is NOT ready for prime time’ because there were more steps to be completed before the loan guarantee could be finalized — namely, OMB had to review the credit rating and Solyndra needed to raise an additional $200 million in private capital. [House Energy and Commerce Republicans,9/14/11]

The merit of the loan guarantee lies with the OMB or Office of Management and Budget.

  • OMB reviews and must approve credit subsidy cost estimates for all loan and loan guarantee programs, including the credit subsidy cost estimates generated by DOE for the Title XVII program, to ensure that costs are accounted for appropriately.
  • OMB assesses cost estimates on a loan-by-loan basis because the Title XVII program provides relatively large-dollar guarantees and because their characteristics, terms, and risks vary greatly from project to project.
  • OMB delegates the modeling of credit subsidy costs to agencies, and issues implementing guidance to ensure consistent and accurate estimates of cost.
  • OMB works closely with agencies to create or revise credit subsidy models for new programs or programs issuing their first loans or loan guarantees, such as the Title XVII program in 2009,
  • Based on these models, OMB reviews and exercises final approval authority over credit subsidy costs to ensure that the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees are presented, and reflect estimated risks, consistently across Federal agencies so that taxpayer funds are invested in a prudent and effective fashion.
  • The final decision on whether to issue the loan or guarantee rests with the agency implementing the applicable program – DOE in the case of Title XVII.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201109190020.

By September 2009 Solyndra raised the money, an additional $219 million dollars and the $535 million loan from the DOE went through. Around one billion dollars had been invested in Solyndra, the bigger portion coming from the private investment sector. The Walton’s (the Wal-Mart family) Madrone Capital Partners and the Kaiser Foundation’s Argonaut Venture Capital, the Right and Left money respectively, being the biggest investors.

At this point, early 2010, China trumped everyone in the solar game “dump[ing] $30 billion into its solar industry. That is a lot of money for infrastructure as well as research and development. There is little doubt that the companies making solar panels in China benefited from the money.” http://www.solarcompanies.com/news/china-and-united-states-to-enter-trade-war-on-solar-panels

However, China did so in violation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which prohibits government subsidies for corporations/businesses that plan to export. To do so allows that country to possibly corner the worldwide market in any segment, which China has done with solar panels. The thinking goes this way. A corporation is limited in growth if all its goods and services remain in the country. In the U.S., a corporation is limited by the fact that we only have 300 million people and consumers are only going to buy so many goods/services over a period of time. But if that same corporation decides to export—the sky is the limit. So for any government to heavily subsidize a corporation that also plans to export, tips the playing field badly on competition that can’t possibly keep up. Since China has over 3 times our population the playing field is already tipped to say the least. The $30 billion dollar Chinese “illegal” dump into the solar industry was a death knell for Solyndra. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/business/global/09trade.html?pagewanted=all

It’s not unforeseen or unusual that from December 2010 through February 2011, the two largest private investors, DOE, and Solyndra “negotiated the terms and conditions of an agreement to restructure the Solyndra loan guarantee. Throughout this process, DOE consulted with OMB about the proposed terms and conditions of this arrangement.” NY Times: Experts Said DOE’s Decision To Restructure “Is Routine In The Commercial World.” From a September 16, New York Times article

By the end of February 2011,

  • Both Argonaut and Madrone added a combined $69 million in emergency funds to Solyndra.
  • DOE agreed to extend the term of Solyndra’s loan guarantee from seven to 10 years, and to postpone the first repayment installment by one year, from 2012 to 2013.
  • In addition, the agreement provided that, in the event of the company’s liquidation before 2013, the investors have the senior secured position with respect to the first $75 million recovered. In this case, it is not the full $75 million but rather the $69 million in emergency funds as stated, “The two firms gave the company a total of $69 million in emergency loans. The loans are the only portion of their investments that have repayment priority above the U.S. government. [Associated Press,9/16/11].
  • DOE has the second senior secured position with respect to the next $150 million recovered in liquidation. This is taxpayer money
  • If Solyndra had not liquidated or declared bankruptcy by 2013, the investors would have lost their senior secured position to DOE. [House Energy and Commerce Committee, 9/12/11]

Media Matters further stated that the decision to fund Solyndra, which in turn built brand new state of the art facilities, is in much better shape to garner more when they liquidate. “DOE determined, as part of the restructuring, that the facility would be more valuable, even in the event of a future liquidation, once complete.” He went on to say that “DOE determined that restructuring the loan guarantee gave the U.S. taxpayer the best chance of being repaid”

http://mediamatters.org/research/201109190020

So there you have it. Advanced solar technology like Solyndra had a foothold in the industry when it began 7 years ago, but failed during the slow, slow process of funding during which time a giant like China decided to dump an “unforeseen” 30 billion into the solar panel industry in a very short time. Did they know about Solyndra? China’s panels are ho hum standard cheap, nowhere near the innovation of Solyndra. It’s a shame we have segments of our population that scream about government helping new industry get a start when our competition does it all the time. It’s not socialism by any stretch, especially when it’s about energy and infrastructure. It’s investment in the U.S. future if we’re going to compete with the likes of China, India, Russia, or Brazil—the top 4 economic powers now. Government certainly needs to rethink  trade agreements too now that we know how China plans to play the game.

Share

XL Pipeline Gets New Commitments Although Top Oil Companies Admitted Greenhouse Gas Causes Climate Change; A Travesty for Our Future

The XL Pipeline appears to be a done deal if you search the Internet. The links I’ve referenced below are all pretty much the same with breaking news that additional commitments have been made with TransCanada to deliver tar sands oil via the XL Pipeline from Canada to Houston. What ALL of the articles fail to disclose is just who these “new” commitments are? Is it U.S. big oil, the Koch Brothers, China, who? Did these new binding commitments come from GOP members of our congress that attached the XL Pipeline rider to the Payroll Tax Cut bill? None of the articles relate anything about the new attachment to the Payroll Tax Cuts but it sure seems a coincidence the rider appeared a few days ago and then TransCanada made its announcement about new commitments.

An article in the Vancouver Sun http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Keystone
+pipeline+delay+tragedy/5868403/story.html
about TransCanada’s CEO Russ Girling
pretty much says the same but that he wants no part of the wrangling going on in congress over it. Suuuuuuurrrrre. Liar. TransCanada has been lobbying big time for this pipeline. After the demonstrations against the pipeline TransCanada knew it would more than likely come to an act of congress to get their wish. That 100 million dollar sucker their dangling in front of us as a big benefit to the U.S. will never make it to the average citizen. Any profits will go to big oil’s coffers and fuel a backlash for more dirty energy. As for us, the gas at the pump will go sky high. Truth is Canada has been rubbing its palms together to raise prices at the pump for its oil to the U.S. for awhile. The plan is to create greater demand for the dirty crude by shipping it directly to Asia. A billion waiting consumers in China will do the trick.

Read about it:

http://dirtyoilsands.org/midwestgas.
http://stopbigoilripoffs.com/documents.
http://sierraclub.typepad.com/carlpope/2011/08/tar-sands-oil-keystone.html.
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/10/28/356486/promoting-tar-sands-myths-cnns-steve-hargreaves-bets-keystone-xl-pipeline-will-be-approved/.

This is going to get nasty before it gets better. Using jobs to extort new filthy energy after big oil including Exxon admitted greenhouse gases contribute to climate change is suicide. And they want to take us with them. Oh we’ll have pocketfuls of money according to the pipeline supporters. Another suuuuurrrre!!! What good will that do against the wrath of Mother Nature in the end? And the trip to that end will be filled with more strange autoimmune diseases for our children due to pollution not to mention asthma and lung related problems. If we really liked the downpours, flooding, drought, and fires we’ve been experiencing there will surely be encore productions of that too.

Not long ago Exxon Mobil stated:

The world faces a significant challenge to supply the energy required for economic development and improved standards of living while managing greenhouse gas emissions and the risks of climate change, said Emil Jacobs, vice president of research and development at Exxon Mobil Research and Engineering Co. It’s going to take integrated solutions and the development of all commercially viable energy sources, improved energy efficiency and effective steps to curb emissions. It is also going to include the development of new technology.

.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/07/14/14greenwire-exxon-sinks-600m-into-algae-based-biofuels-in-33562.html.

Conoco Phillips stated:

ConocoPhillips recognizes that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate

http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/susdev/policies/climate_change_position/Pages/index.aspx.

Royal Dutch Shell stated:

Royal Dutch Shell’s PLS chief said the implementation of climate change agreements made at Cancun last month “won’t happen overnight”, and policymakers must take action now “because the clock is ticking.

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/you-know-climate-change-is-real-when-the-ceo-of-shell-states-the-clock-is-ticking-and-we-need-to-take-action-now/.

Links to articles about the “new commitments” to the XL Pipeline:

http://www.transcanada.com/5907.html.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/TransCanada-Announces-iw-1226478735.html.

http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2011-12-15/arEDwAwsRxw0.html.

Share

Nor’easter 2011 No Fluke; Worsening Weather and Related Economic Downfall Predicted Years Ago

Scientists predicted that there will likely be an increase in precipitation both in winter and spring for the eastern U.S., fires and drought for the southwest, bigger and worsening storms across the country in general, and a residual economic downfall in hard hit areas. Maybe the public should have taken the initiative to become more informed instead of blindly listening to their politicians relative to climate change. Unfortunately, I’m already seeing blogs popping up following yesterday’s Nor’easter blast on our east coast that question “global warming,” since there was so much snow and early. Be aware that precipitation means snow not just rain. We have El Nino conditions where cold air comes down on us suddenly and ferociously. And the U.S. cannot afford the increasing expense of attacks by Mother Nature.

I know there have been articles and news reports explaining to the public that global warming does not mean temperatures across the globe will be hotter EVERYWHERE. And worsening storms year round should be enough to convince the public that climate is indeed changing. I’ve blogged about both many times myself. As science is discovering, massive ice ages and warming events of the past did not encompass the entire globe. It may be better to state that climate change is brought about by global warming. Climate change means bigger, worse, extreme, and chaotic weather, and/or for places that were always cold it may be warmer, and places that were always warm may become colder. Change encompasses ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. It means there will be chaotic and varying weather events worldwide. We’ve seen enough to know better at this point.

I’ve put together a list of my own blogs on the subject of climate change due to global warming and can’t believe how soon we forget:

July 14, 2009

Predictions from Completed Government Report on Global Warming

A 196 page report entitled “Global Climate Change Impact on U.S.” predicts the scenarios we’ve already heard but failed to heed so far like worse weather, and property loss and the domino effect on everything else including the economy.

The report appears to be nonpartisan in nature, commissioned by the Bush Administration in 2007 and concluded just recently in the Obama Administration. It does reassure at the conclusion that a worsening scenario can be still be fixed.

The Midwest or Great Lakes region report is accurate. We are seeing more snow in winter and rain in early spring, and then we dry up the rest of the summer into fall. The bad thing is I think we’re getting more and windier too.

The good news is that the harshest impacts of future climate change can be avoided if the nation takes deliberate action soon. This can be done through a balanced mix of activities to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and adaptation to the otherwise unavoidable impacts.”

Unfortunately, there seems to be an economic downfall attached to each region as the result of global warming too. CEO of World Wildlife Fund expressed, “Already Americans are paying the price for the lack of action on climate change in the past and those costs will only rise. It’s time for Congress to act. ”

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2009/07/predictions-from-completed-government-report-on-global-warming/

February 9, 2010

The Likely Increase in Precipitation in Winter and Spring

The likely increase in precipitation in winter and spring was one of the key issues reported by the U.S. Global Change Research Program not long ago. It was relative to the Midwest…Well this is a winter downpour.

The U.S. has been hit by some record-breaking snowfalls for all time. One hundred million Americans have been affected by the current snowfall that’s not over yet. That’s one third of our entire population. This massive storm affects 26 states. In some places citizens just got their power back from the last blast. Six thousand flights have been canceled throughout the east coast.

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2010/02/the-likely-increase-in-precipitation-in-winter-and-spring/

February 23, 2010

Scientists Other Than IPCC Affirm Consensus on Global Warming

[]There needs to be much more communication to the public in laymen’s terms so that the public understands the science behind climate change and doesn’t buy into the misleading spin attached to every mistake turned up. The scientists at the AAAS symposium “expressed shock at the political effects of the disclosures (misleading info relative to climategate) and said the impact was far out of proportion to the overwhelming evidence that human activity is changing the Earth’s climate.”

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2010/02/scientists-other-than-ipcc-affirm-consensus-on-global-warming/

February 11, 2010

One Hundred Sixty Billion Tons of Snow

And like my recent blog, the increase in precipitation in the Midwest was predicted in the recent U.S. Climate Research Report. ABC ended their report with the same retort by scientists. They predicted this would happen. There will be bigger, and far worse storms year round. Amen.

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2010/02/one-hundred-sixty-billion-tons-of-snow/

February 10, 2010

Mother Nature Tops Off Snowmageddon with an Earthquake Near Chicago

Is anyone paying attention to Mother Nature yet? She’s slapping us in the face to wake up. But we’ll probably just toss off this doozy of a snowstorm as a freak. That is until around 4:00 am this morning a 3.8 earthquake rattled near Elgin, Illinois. It was felt in Chicago. The earthquake might have gained a little more attention to Mother Nature.

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2010/02/mother-nature-tops-off-snowmageddon-with-an-earthquake-near-chicago/

March 15, 2010

Thousands Without Power First from Snow, Now Rain

The heavy snowfalls across America were heralded to be from global cooling when in fact the snowfalls were the excessive precipitation predicted due climate change. Now that it is actually warm and torrential rainfall and high winds hit the same areas burdened earlier with snow, deniers need a new explanation.

According the Bangor News Daily, “The storm, which battered parts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut on Saturday with gusts of up to 70 mph, struck about two weeks after heavy snow and hurricane-force winds left more than a million customers in the Northeast in the dark. More than a half-million customers in the region lost electricity at the peak of Saturday’s storm, and more than 485,000 were waiting for power to be restored Sunday morning.”

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2010/03/thousands-without-power-first-from-snow-now-rain/

This is enough when read back to back, although I could add in the summer’s record breaking heatwaves, as-well-as, the summer before. Heatwaves will surely happen again as predicted too. How much will it take until there is a public outcry for energy policy that directly addresses a decrease in greenhouse gases while diverting subisides to established business like big oil to become incentives to alternative energy companies, and an increase in public awareness to action at the same time?

Share

Weather Wake Up Call for U.S. as Congress Keeps Pushing for More Fossil Fuel Energy

I know I’m not the only one linking greenhouse gas emissions to global climate change to all the horrendously bad weather pummeling the U.S. lately. The east coast is still without power from Hurricane Irene. A new hurricane Katia is churning up in the Atlantic along with a new tropical storm promising to drop a huge amount of rainfall on New Orleans again missing Texas for relief from the record drought there.

At the same time, it’s been a busy 24 hours for earthquake activity in the U.S. In the late morning hours today, 3 earthquakes hit Alaska’s Aleutian Island area. One was 6.8 that triggered a tsunami warning for the U.S. western coastline between 7:30 and 8:00 am while another 4.2 earthquake shook the Los Angeles area yesterday at 1:47 in the afternoon. If we look at the world map for earthquakes there was substantial seismic activity from the southern hemisphere along Australia north to the ring of fire areas of the Indian Ocean arcing around the pacific basin up to Alaska.

Worldwide earthquakes with M4.5+ located by USGS and Contributing Agencies.
(Earthquakes with M2.5+ within the United States and adjacent areas.)

If all of this challenging weather isn’t a wake up call to get moving on sustainable alternatives, then our reps in Congress and some presidential candidates pushing the filthy tar sands project that will ultimately burn 6X dirtier than usual and hawking our substantial caches of coal are representing Big Oil/Gas/Coal and not our health and welfare.

There is no denying the entire world is suffering from increasingly greater extremes of weather with summers at record highs and winters with increasing precipitation in the form of snow in places like Florida. But politics, at least in the U.S. continues to polarize viewpoints about global climate on behalf of Big Energy Industries, using jobs vs. environment as a ploy to divide U.S. citizens once again. Divide and conquer is not just a saying—it works. Because while were fighting/arguing climate change points with each other, congress is passing anti-environmental laws right under our noses. These laws are a direct affront to our clean air, water, and the EPA that is in place for our safety and welfare and have less to do with jobs than deregulation. Think about it. Jobs can be created in many industries. New jobs in new industries would be nice expanding all sorts of related jobs in engineering, science, and the technical fields for a new generation looking to the future not fearing it. On the other hand, once Mother Nature turns on us that’s it.

Are we absolutely positive human activity is not affecting climate change because I’m seeing videos of huge cesspools of plastic gyres growing in size in our oceans? Just because we can’t see pollution is no assurance it’s not there.

So as Mother Nature bears down on our east coast, the gulf, and rumbles the west coast to Alaska, maybe we should forget politics entangled with enormous lobbyist activity from the wealthiest of industries Big Oil/Gas/Coal. Maybe we should use some good ole street smarts believing what we see and experience because what we’re experiencing is advancing global climate change whether it’s politically correct to believe it or not.

To those that continue to follow a political line concerning global climate change that diss the idea that man’s pollution is a catalyst for the horrendous weather we’re experiencing, than why not apply the same 1% principle as we did to enter a war with Iraq that half our citizens never wanted. Former VP Cheney’s one percent principle as applied to global climate change would read like this:

If there is even a 1% chance that human activity such as greenhouse gas emissions is causing accelerated global climate change, then it is our duty to do all that we can to stop that activity for the welfare of mankind everywhere.

There is little argument against this principle because while deniers claim science can’t prove greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change, deniers can’t prove those greenhouse gas emission aren’t causing a problem either. This principle covers the bases. If was good enough for the U.S. to wage war in a country that had nothing to do with the U.S. terrorist attacks or WMD’s, than it’s good enough to save citizens of this country from the devastation Mother Nature can cause that can far exceed any war. Because while we were battered with fear tactics for almost a decade regarding terrorism, no one has stepped forward to churn the same fear for the wrath of Mother Nature when we can clearly see that she is indeed our greatest threat. Attacks by her are happening along our coastlines all at once right now and fewer dollars to recover from it. There may be more, increasingly worse weather if we fail to act.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/

Share

Earthquakes Rattle Virginia and Colorado as North American Plate Gets a Shove

 Today’s earthquake in Virginia is rare, ur um, kinda rare since it was the worst since 1897 when another 5.8 magnitude earthquake hit Virginia. There was a 4.2 aftershock reported just a short time ago too. It’s rare that Virginia gets really rattled by an earthquake because Virginia is in what is considered the middle of the North American tectonic plate.

 I found an interesting geological explanation about earthquakes in Virginia at http://www.virginiaplaces.org/geology/quake.html. The website explained that the North American Plate extends to the middle of the Atlantic and that magma rises and literally pushes Virginia along the shoreline and subsequently the whole North American plate toward China at a rate of 2 to 3 cm a year. That may explain the 5.5 earthquake in Colorado today also as part of the big shove. Hopefully the mountains will be a buffer and absorb some of the movement because the North American plate strikes the Pacific plat at the San Andreas fault in California. And it does appear that the two earthquakes are connected by one big event to the east in the Atlantic. I’m going to keep checking the USGS website for the next few days just to see if there are any repercussions from today’s earthquakes farther west.

 Maybe a little reminder of Mother Nature and her power is good in Washington D.C. since the House is busy passing anti-environmental bills and the Chamber of Commerce is spending millions to “weaken and eliminate essential public safeguards in the name of ‘regulatory reform,’” according to Public Citizen News. Evan Bayh former senator of Indiana and Andy Card former Chief of Staff for “W” are embarking on a dog and pony show to spread the anti-regulatory credo that will only benefit corporations while killing us off. Man does not live by tainted water and breathing questionable air. Our pollution affects our environment, our health. Attacking the Clean Air and Water Acts like this is what a 3rd world country’s leadership does and those leaderships are usually cartels.  I got a good laugh because Google’s two definitions fit the bill for this latest political cartel on behalf of corporate America and not us.

 Cartel:

 1.      An association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition

 2.      A coalition or cooperative arrangement between political parties intended to promote a mutual interest.

One would think the worldwide heat of this summer and in some places the second summer would deter our country’s efforts to keep forging ahead with fossil fuel. An earthquake is a mighty force and from some of the D.C. commenters on websites the first thought was terrorists not Mother Nature that came to mind today when the earthquake hit. Maybe if we start thinking of sweet Mother Nature along the same lines as terror, the environment would get as much attention.

 http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2011/aug/23/4/rare-earthquake-rattles-northern-virginia-ar-1257687/

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44237629/ns/us_news/?ocid=ansmsnbc11

 

 

Share

Sweltering Heat Worldwide as U.S. House Tacks Anti-Environmental Riders to Budget Bills.

Headlines from around the globe show nothing but sweltering heat.

 From the NOAA website:

 Heatwave sweeps across the U.S.

http://www.noaa.gov/heat/index.html

Europe’s heat wave hit earlier in June this year:

Heat wave has Europe Sweltering

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/28/heatwave-has-europe-sweltering

 Europe hit record highs just last year along with Russia!

 Record-Breaking 2010 Eastern European/Russian Heatwave

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110318091141.htm

As of today an estimated 10 million people already need humanitarian aid in eastern Africa but extreme drought conditions along the borders of Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia are exacerbating the situation.

Somalia drought forces more people into displacement camps

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2011/jun/28/somalia-drought-appeal-in-pictures

After suffering a tsunami, Japan hasn’t been spared. The final days of June in Japan were 6 degrees higher than the 30 year average:

Japan struggles to cope with heatwave, with 26 dead of heatstroke

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8645326/Japan-struggles-to-cope-with-heatwave-with-26-dead-of-heatstroke.html

Drought continues in SW Australia where rainfall in some places is at all time record lows:

Long-term dry conditions continue in southwest WA

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/drought.shtml

 And the cool weather of Northern Canada—not so much:

Heat scorches Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/17/cda-weather-heat.html

But instead of posting headline after headline across the earth, the Union of Concerned Scientists has a worldwide heat map:

http://www.climatehotmap.org/

One would think that in light of what the world is experiencing as far as climate change that our government would heed Mother Nature but new corporate lackeys in the House persist in adding anti-environmental riders to budget bills.

Most Anti-Environment House of Representatives in History Tries to Do More Damage

According to Frances Beinecke, of NRDC, and a barrage of email from my environmental charities our new U.S. House of Representatives is the worst on record for assaulting clean air, water, and our public lands.

Tea Party leaders in the House have dramatically stepped up their assault on America’s environmental and public health safeguards. Last week alone they used about 50 floor votes and more than 30 policy riders on spending bills to undermine the protections that keep our air safe, our water clean, and our public lands intact.

Another barrage of anti-environment bills is on its way. The upcoming debate in the full House on funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department will likely feature votes on even more policy riders designed to prevent the government from upholding basic environmental standards.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/fbeinecke/most_anti-environment_house_of.html

Clean water is specifically under attack by new house member (R) Ohio, Bob Gibbs according to the NY Times. He thinks there may be too many clean water regulations. Bob is a former hog farmer. An enlightening read from a former post of mine relative to the hog industry, particularly CAFOS, applies here. Smithfield Foods polluted waterways clear to the ocean with runoff from their hog industry. So we see where Bob the former hog farmer might be coming from. And reading what Bob had to say in an excerpt in the NY Times, it’s all about money first, pollution later.

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2006/12/spreading-pig-poo-who-knew/

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/03/03greenwire-anti-environmental-house-freshman-leads-charge-98149.html

The problem is that Bob isn’t alone. It looks like there may be complicity among state’s leaders with the idea that water has too many regulations. Just the other morning I caught that little ticker on GMA that stated several states have failed to report clean water violations? Hmmm. Found the story by the AP on Yahoo.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Feds-in-dark-about-some-apf-2889953000.html?x=0&.v=1

My guess is that some of the under-reporting by states is due to problems with fracking for natural gas. Fracking is a drilling process that wastes millions of gallons of clean water to blast each well with enough pressure  to fracture dense shale to release natural gas. The water mixes with gases and chemicals and is toxic. This practice has been blamed for spoiling residential water wells due to leaching from the fractures. The process pollutes nearby streams and water areas also. Exxon claims they recycle some of the water but “some” isn’t all and when we’re dealing with millions of gallons of water in exchange for a fossil gas—it’s unconscienceable. Children die from lack of water everyday.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13353997

Besides compromising or possibly depleting our clean water supplies, fracking and drilling are costing us our public lands leased to the oil/gas industry. The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for leases for drilling/fracking.

Ah, so now it’s clear why all those pesky WILD MUSTANG HORSES had to go. Thirty year-old laws protecting those horses were just brushed aside while helicopters were used for roundups into overcrowded conditions.  We were told wild mustangs were too numerous and destroying precious grasslands. But the BLM is leasing our public lands right from under us while we’re occupied with the economy. That land will never be the same.

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/newsroom/2011/march/energy_publiclands_teleconf.html

http://wilderness.org/content/wild-lands-under-attack-budget-2011

The idea that it’s OK to keep forging ahead with filthy fossil fuel  as long as the fuel is our own is ludicrous and at least a decade old, a decade out of touch with the environment. By using fossil fuel we’re affecting other natural resources in the worst way.  We’re invading areas that we hold dear, tainting both water and land, and destroying animal/plant life in the process. We can’t drink natural gas or oil and that’s basically the tradeoff.  Without water we die. Without gas/oil –we’re inconvenienced. The U.S. House doesn’t have life’s best interests at all.

.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Share

New Polls Show U.S. Energy Bill Has Citizen’s Support

I caught an article that said 70% of Americans think we should put a lid on pollution. Kind of late now since the energy bill died. Maybe it died so a much better energy bill could be written with “we the people’s” backing. I started looking around at recent polls and that just might be the case. All is not lost. There are a bunch of polls with a common consensus. A good energy bill would make it to law with citizen’s wide spread approval.

January 22, 2010, Climate Progress reported:

On January 21, a Republican and Democratic pollster released separate polls that found that there is strong bipartisan support to reduce the pollution responsible for global warming.

Despite endless attacks on climate science by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and other Republican leaders, Luntz [Frank Luntz, Republican pollster], found that 43% of Republicans “definitely” or “probably” believe climate change is caused at least in part by humans.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/22/gop-dem-polls-show-climate-and-clean-energy-jobs-legislation-has-strong-bipartisan-support/.

May 10, 2010, A new poll released by the Clean Energy Works campaign showed:

[There was] overwhelming public support for comprehensive clean energy legislation,” with 61 percent of 2010 voters saying they want to limit pollution, invest in clean energy and make energy companies pay for emitting the carbon that contributes to climate change. A healthy majority — 54 percent — of respondents said they’d be more likely to re-elect a senator who votes for the bill.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, which has been pushing for climate change legislation for years, released its own poll numbers. NRDC’s pollsters found seven in 10 Americans want to see fast-tracked clean energy legislation in the wake of the BP oil spill, and two-thirds say they want to postpone new offshore drilling until the Gulf oil spill is investigated and new safeguards are put in place.

Going back one more day than NRDC, Rasmussen Reports found that even after the Gulf oil spill began dominating the Web, TV newscasts and newspaper front pages, 58 percent of respondents still favor offshore drilling. That’s a big majority but a 14-point drop from the 72 percent who favored offshore drilling [back when president Obama suggested new areas be opened for it].

A poll by Republicans for Environmental Preservation— a quote on their website reads “Nothing is more conservative than conservation” — that showed 52 percent of Republicans and a similar number people who consider themselves conservatives support a U.S. energy policy to boost domestic energy production and cap carbon emissions. Even among Tea Party respondents, who are generally hostile to what they call big government, the poll found more favored the policy — 47 percent — than the 42 percent who opposed it.

http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/05/10/washington-math-oil-spill-climate-bill-new-environmental-polls/.

June 10, 2010, According to the Grist: “[]Jon Krosnick’s Political Psychology Research Group at Stanford [poll] results, in sum, are as follows: large majorities believe in climate change and want the government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, make polluters pay, and support clean energy. The one thing they don’t want? Taxes. The public doesn’t like taxes. They want polluters to pay … but they don’t want taxes.[]”

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-09-new-poll-shows-again-public-likes-clean-energy-doesnt-like-taxes/#post-a-comment.

July 15, 2010, League of Conservation Voters poll:

Today we released a new poll showing that nearly 7 out of 10 voters want the Senate to act on comprehensive climate and energy legislation.

What this poll demonstrates is that the Senate is doing the right thing in moving to a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that holds polluters accountable, reduces our dependence on oil, cuts pollution and creates new American jobs,” said LCV President Gene Karpinski. “The opposition has been saying for years that Americans don’t want a comprehensive energy policy, but poll after poll shows the opponents are wrong.

Overall, 60 percent of 2010 voters, and 56 percent of Independents, support a bill “that will limit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy. It would do this in part by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like oil.”

- The vast majority of voters believe the federal government should be doing more to hold corporate polluters accountable (67 percent) and invest in more clean energy sources (65 percent).

- Voters reject the opposition’s position that “now is not the time.” Even when pressed with false opposition attacks that this is a “job-killing energy tax”, voters support action:
- When asked, only 36 percent agree with: “We need to ensure that BP pays every last dime of the damages they’ve caused, but beyond that, Senators should focus on getting our economy back on track and creating jobs, not passing some huge new Washington program and job-killing energy tax.”
- Whereas 56 percent agree with: “BP must pay for the damage they’ve done. But our addiction to oil threatens our security and we need more than a band-aid for that. Senators need to pass real reforms to hold polluters accountable and invest in clean American energy.”
- Even in the face of harsh messaging from the opposition, 57 percent of likely 2010 voters support a comprehensive energy bill.

http://www.actgreen.com/2010/07/new-poll-shows-strong-public-support.html.

July 19, 2010, “A new poll released by Benenson Strategies Group shows the American people strongly support a comprehensive energy and climate bill that includes provisions encouraging alternative energy production and limits on carbon pollution.”

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/170254.

Even the Brits support pollution caps and energy legislation according to their poll. They still believe in the science of climate change even after Climategate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/11/confidence-climate-science-poll.

The consensus among these polls is evident. Americans feel we need to keep our pollution, especially emissions, under control while we move along to cleaner alternatives and the way to do that is through government regulations for polluting industries. I like what Mayor Bloomberg had to say. No cap and trade. Just issue a penalty to polluters. I say that penalty better be big enough to get their attention (deep pockets).

We need to start somewhere. What I found interesting is that there was a drop in pollution/climate change opinion before the gulf oil leak and after Climategate about the same time the tax commercials ramped up. The energy tax commercials seem to run every commercial break during the news hour on some stations battering people with the belief the oil industry’s penalty will penalize us as the NY Times reported below. Not right. I already dedicated a blog to those lies. A penalty should be suffered/felt not passed along to consumers already paying big oil billion dollar subsidies annually.

April 2, 2010, The NY Times:

The oil and gas industry is funding an advertising campaign aimed at stopping new energy taxes, an effort that comes as it faces both a loss of tax benefits and possible new penalties as part of climate legislation.

The ads target President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget proposal to eliminate tax breaks for petroleum companies, API said. The Department of Energy said the plan would generate $36.5 billion over the next 10 years. The industry says it would cost companies $80 billion over the same period.

The spots attempt to tie the budget proposal to people’s pocketbooks, said Adele Morris, policy director for climate and energy economics at the Brookings Institution.

‘The purpose with these ads is to make it seem these taxes will be felt by consumers at the pump,’ Morris said. ‘It’s to try to tell a story that energy consumers will be harmed.’

[But] the 15-and 30-second spots refer only to generic “energy industry taxes.’ [] Analysts and critics of the industry say the ads also could be seen as an attack on a climate bill emerging. []

‘I assumed they were talking about the climate bill,’ Morris said of her initial reaction to the API ads.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/01/01greenwire-oil-and-gas-ads-target-energy-industry-taxes-10276.html?pagewanted=1.

May 11, 2010, Check this out according to Texas on the Potomac:

Just last year, the oil and gas industry reported spending $169 million in lobbying expenses — nearly eight times the $21.9 million spent by the environmental movement. BP spent $15.9 million in 2009, ranking second behind ConocoPhillips, according to the nonpartisan watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics.

Among BP’s priorities was the “American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009″ that would allow increased leasing in the Gulf and drilling closer to the coast than currently permitted.

Over the past 20 years, the energy industry has pumped more than $500 million into the coffers of candidates and party committees, $334 million in the past decade, with three-fourths of it going to Republicans.

BP political committees and employees have donated more than $3.5 million since 1990. The company often has hedged its political bets: Its top two recipients in 2008, for example, were President Obama ($71,051) and Republican presidential nominee John McCain ($36,649). Its top two House candidates were Houston Republican Rep. John Culberson and his Democratic opponent, alternative energy entrepreneur Michael Skelly.

The contributions weren’t all that much, but hedging? Geez.

http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2010/05/oil_industry_lobbying_
donation.html
.

So it’s a duck. It looked like a duck. Big oil, and other polluting industries have the money and power to sway things their way, and have been doing it for quite some time. The recent oil spill simply brought it all out of the closet.

That kind of sway works most of the time, but in this instance it looks like the American public still has some street smarts. We know about motivation, but we can also see the growing evidence we’re taxing Mother Earth. It’s got to stop and if we can help, so be it.

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2010/07/the-oil-spill-record-heat-wave-more-energy-tax-commercials-lies/.

Share

Kevin Costner’s Invention to Clean Up Gulf is a Hit

One of the main problems with the cleanup is scooping the gooey stuff that ends up being 90 some % water. Then there is the problem of where to dump the stuff.

According to ABC News:

The machine is a centrifuge designed to separate spilled oil from water and, according to Costner, could be instrumental in cleaning up the massive oil slick expanding in the Gulf.

Costner has spent the past 15 years and more than $20 million of his own money to develop the oil separator, which during successful testing, left water 99 percent clean of crude.

Why wouldn’t it be a better solution to outfit the ships with Costner’s invention? This interview was before the oil leak was capped.

We need these machines out there. These machines should have been tested and OK’d, what did Costner say—12 years ago? The powers that were obviously did not care about the “what if” scenario and the environment even after the Exxon Valdez spill. Here we are 12 years later…

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/bp-excited-kevin-costners-oil-cleanup-machine-purchases/story?id=10916445.

Share

Skeptics/Deniers Don’t Accept That Climategate Was a Bust

I’ve been reading around and keep catching comments on websites about Climategate–still. It seems that many that comment are ill informed. They don’t know that Climategate was a bust. Nothing unethical was uncovered. There was no validity to accusations involving the hacked email. I blogged here that Dr. Michael Mann was totally exonerated and that Penn State went the extra mile to quell further accusations of a whitewash.

But deniers/skeptics jump on the whitewash wagon anyway, insisting on listening to their fave politicians over science/scientists or heaven forbid–government reports. They’re simply being snowed by industry, the same industry that seeks to pollute us to death for profit while stuffing the pockets of said politicians.

What’s curious to me is that the hackers got away with breaking the law and no one seems to care who they were, if they were hired, how they did it, and where they are now. Rights were violated, but it’s OK? The illegal hackers have yet to be caught, something else that is curious. One would think besides jumping on the scientists for so-called manipulation of data, there would also be equal interest in catching the hackers and uncovering their motivation. Were they paid, how much and by whom for example? But that hasn’t materialized, hmmmm?

Skeptics fail to comment about the hackers, a big gaping omission that paints a picture of one-sided justice. Sketchy emails were turned into climate gate. Why would deniers/skeptics even jump on these emails when deniers/skeptics claimed all along climate science is inexact, data is erroneously gathered or misinterpreted, and climate history only goes back a so far. Between all of these excuses one would think there was little need for “Climategate” for more validation.

It seems what we really have here are a lot of ostriches, burying their heads in the sand, content that their fave politicians say it’s just a whitewash, no need to worry because man can’t possibly affect the environment, when right in front of us unfolds the greatest obstacle to that thinking, the gulf oil spill. Man most certainly affected a huge portion of the environment for years to come in one fell swoop of negligence.

Share