That's a terrible picture of Keith.

I guess manufacture of the batteries in the hybrid cars are producing a terrible amount of hazardous materials. Kind of like how the windmills kill lots of birds.

I'm a nuclear fission/fusion kind of environmentalist. Waiting for my nuclear car.

Make up your mind fusion or fission?

Just pulling your chain. Katie, do you believe that humans are partly to blame for climate change?

I think, as in most cases, it is importatant to follow the money. THere is a tremendous amount of money in Academia to work on studies that prove humans are responsible for climate change. THe more studies, the more money and a vicious cycle is created.

I personally believe that outgassing from volcanoes, the oceans, etc. are most responsible for climate change and that climate change is a constant. There are many studies that are flawed, particularly the "hockey stick" graph.

Do I think humans are partly to blame? No, not really. We are just the flotsom and jetson of life and are insignificant when compared to Kackatoa, the Pacific Ocean, the Ring of Fire, etc.

Both fission and fusion play a part in nuclear reactions. I don't care which one my car uses. I'm sure not going to drive a toxic waste dump like a Prius (there, that ought to get some feathers ruffled).

Brian:

Senator McCain is cosponsoring a bipartisan bill with Joe Lieberman entitled the "Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007"

Here is the five part outline from Senator McCain's press release dated January 12th.

First, it must have rational, mandatory emission reduction targets and timetables. It must be goal oriented, and have both environmental and economic integrity. We need policy that will produce necessary outcomes, not merely check political boxes. The goal must be feasible and based on sound science, and this is what we have tried to do in this bill.

"Second, it must utilize a market-based cap and trade system. It must limit greenhouse gas emissions and allows the trading of emission credits to drive enterprise, innovation and efficiency. This is the central component of our legislation. Voluntary efforts will not change the status quo, taxes are counterproductive, and markets are more dependable than regulators in effecting sustainable change.

"Third, it must include mechanisms to minimize costs and work effectively with other markets. The “trade” part of “cap and trade” is such a mechanism, but it’s clear it must be bolstered by other assurances that costs will be minimized. I am as concerned as anyone about the economic impacts associated with any climate change legislation. I know that many economists are developing increasingly sophisticated ways to project future costs of compliance. Lately, we have seen the increased interest in this area of research. As we learn more from these models about additional action items to further reduce costs, we intend to incorporate them. Already, based upon earlier economic analysis, we have added “offsets” provisions in this bill in an effort to minimize costs and to provide for the creation of new markets. And, I assure my colleagues, we will continue to seek new and innovative ways to further minimize costs.

"Fourth, it must spur the development and deployment of advanced technology. Nuclear, solar, and other alternative energy must be part of the equation and we need a dedicated national commitment to develop and bring to market the technologies of the future as a matter of good environmental and economic policy. There will be a growing global market for these technologies and the U.S. will benefit greatly from being competitive and capturing its share of these markets. This legislation includes a detailed technology title that would go a long way toward meeting this goal. Unlike the Energy bill, it would be funded using the proceeds from the auctioning of allowable emission credits, rather than from the use of taxpayers' funds or appropriations that will never materialize.

"And fifth, it must facilitate international efforts to solve the problem. Global warming is an international problem requiring an international effort. The United States has an obligation to lead. Our leadership cannot replace the need for action by countries such as India and China. We must spur and facilitate it. We have added provisions that would allow U.S. companies to enter into partnerships in developing countries for the purpose of conducting projects to achieve certified emission reductions, which may be traded on the international market.

"These five components represent a serious challenge that will require a great deal of effort, the concentration of substantial intellectual power, and the continued efforts of our colleagues and those in the environmental, industry, economic, and national security communities. We look forward to collaborating in this effort as we continue to shape our legislation to its most effective form.

I'm tracking this legislation pretty closely to see what kind of action will be done global warming in this next term. Hope all is well.

GLOBAL WARMING isn't the problem right now. It's the CLIMATE CHANGE that accompanies it that's the killer and the question of whether or not its caused by Man or Nature is a moot point. Its the 100s of billions of refugees on the move due to drought & famine, the migration of exotic diseases and the economic dislocation due to rising oceans that are the approaching symptoms and I don't see our leaders doing very much to prepare for the day they arrive.

Last year my family took a trip to France. My children were amazed at the all the nuclear power structures they saw as we drove through the countryside on beautiful highways in a Mercedes bio-diesel van. Smooth, clean and plenty of power.

Being that George Bush's government says it is true, that means are two biggest CAPC is to the right of Bush on the environment.

I made that last comment. Sorry for not adding my name. I am just amazed that CAPC leaders believe the governor, the most moderate leader in modern history would waste tax payer dollars because he was hoodwinked by some college profs looking for research dollars. Is the governor that easy to trick?

Personally, i think the governor is brilliant in this regards. So is Tony Blair. McCain too. Lieberman should be on the list.

They are all moderates and CAPC leaders think they have all been conned.

I don't believe Leslie or I were speaking for CAPC on this matter. I didn't put the acronym any where in my post and I don't think Leslie did either. In fact, I'd be surpised if she and I even agreed - we don't on most issues. That's the beauty of CAPC - all opinions are sought and considered. When it comes down to specific candidates or reform politcy, the Advisory Council makes a recommendation - not individual members.

I put the global warming hysteria into the same basket as stem cell research. I have a fairly recent B.S. in Neuroscience and studied stem cell research pretty extensively. Adult stem cells are more robust then embryonic stem cells and have none of the ethical issues. There is little funding for adult stem cell research compared to embryonic stem cell reserach. Thus you don't hear about it.

Arnold put through a $3 billion dollar prop. for stem cell research. I'm not happy about it but I'm not going to be 100% with any politician. He does try to work across the aisle and that I do respect and will always support.

I am happy how Bush isn't funding anymore embryonic stem cell lines. I think any research should be privitized, not government funded. Just like I think abortion should not be government funded. I used to be pro-Choice for decades and have been pro-Life for the last five years. I was always a Republican and always believed that tax-payers shouldn't have to pay for abortions. I see no point in trying to make them illegal but women should have a true choice - and that means making 4-D ultrasounds mandatory and providing them with the medical/surgery disclaimers that are currently conveniently bypassed. Women and men need to know what exactly they are doing and that isn't the case. Abortion is cloaked in euphanisms and medical reporting waivers because women "can't handle" the reality of their decision. That attitude isn't respectful to anyone and only benefits politicians who hope to make it a galvinizing platform for votes and money.

Global warming will be exacerbated by the nuclear water that will one day seep out of the ground in an enormous artesian eruption and flood west Simi Valley like Gary Selvaggio so heroically (and soberly) stated.

We need a comedy club in Simi Valley. GS can make some bucks.

Brian

Great job on bringing a discussion on global warming to the forefront.

I read two articles this evening on how both Christian evangelicals and many corporate CEOs are pushing for something that resembles the bill presented by McCain, Lieberman, and other co-sponsors such as Snowe and Obama.

I am very proud that a local job provider like Alcoa has decided to sign on to support bringing this issue to the forefront.

I am also anxious to see what movement is made on this issue in this congress and also support the Governor taking a strong stance on this global challenge as well.

Take care all.

Scott,

I agree. I am glad we are moving to a post partisan phase where most mainstream leaders admit America can do more to fight climate change.

The steps they are proposing for the most part will help America even if the prevailing climate change theories are incorrect. It has never hurt America to innovate and it won't this time either.

If Arnold can sell his hummers and admit we have a problem I think anyone can.

The governor is going to have a great legacy if he can help push this forward. I look forward to the best minds in the world pushing our society forward.

Here is a link to a story about peter Foy and a new safety task force.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/sv/article/0,1375,VCS_239_5290602,00.html

I don't think it warrants an entry because it seems like run of the mill work. Sometimes, thats a good thing.

I look forward to the discussions on ethics reforms and term limits. Starting off with basic safety makes sense though.

HUH? How does recounting a drive in a cool bio diesel van put me to the right of Bush? I just think this country needs to be open to new ideas on energy. In a lot of ways we are behind.

Brian:

Thanks for the positive words. Below is a portion of a speech from Alcoa's CEO Alain Belda called " A Call for Sustainable Action" given in December, 2006. Alcoa often is a major contributor to our local charities in Simi Valley and is taking the lead by requesting the President add more language on global warming to his state of the union address.

I think the best is yet to come.

There has always been and will always be members of the "flat earth society". It's best to just ignore them and fix the problems. Alcoa has taken action on this issue and should be applauded.

"Alcoa has reduced its direct greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 1990. We achieved this ambitious goal in 2003, seven years before
our 2010 target date, and we have maintained the lower emissions level ever since.

To achieve our goal, we focused on applying innovative engineering processes to lower PFC emissions by more than 75% and by
increased recycling at our facilities.

We established a Greenhouse Gas Network with an aggressive program to reduce GHG emissions from power generation, refining and smelting that account for about 90% of Alcoa’s total emissions.
In the area of energy conservation, Alcoa has reduced world wide electricity usage for primary aluminum manufacturing by more than
one-third since 1950. But conserving energy takes much more than investing in new
technology- it requires changing activities and practices, at every level, that contribute to inefficiency and waste.

We have a long standing commitment to renewable hydro power. We're a founding member of the Green Power Market Development Group, helping develop corporate markets for renewable energy
sources.

When it opens next year, our new smelter in Iceland will be one of the lowest GHG intensity smelters in the world, using hydroelectric power
to achieve the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per ton of aluminum possible.

We want it to set the benchmark for sustainability best practices in
the industry.

In Brazil, Alcoa is participating in developing hydropower plants that independent studies show will be environmentally sound, socially
responsible and economically feasible.

That is a winning combination for sustainability.
We are committed to decreasing the company’s reliance on fossil fuels by increasing the use of natural, renewable energy sources that
help lower carbon dioxide emissions.
We're already using biodiesel, an alternative fuel consisting of diesel and 20% soybean oil or other non-petroleum ingredients, to power
mobile equipment at our plants.

Today, Alcoa is developing new smelting technology that would eliminate all consumable carbon anodes and related carbon dioxide emissions, as well as all PFC emissions.
We are committed to our industry and our products being part of the solution to climate change.
Aluminum is endlessly recyclable, making this a priority area for our Company.

Using recycled metal saves 95% of the energy it would take to manufacture new metal. Almost three quarters of all the aluminum ever produced in the past 100-plus years is still in use today.
But perhaps where Alcoa can have the greatest impact is application of our key product to the world of transportation.

As a leading manufacturer of aluminum auto components expanding use of aluminum in automobiles and light trucks is good for the environment, energy independence, communities, and business.

Every 10% reduction in a car’s weight can result in a 7% reduction in the vehicle’s GHG emissions.
When you consider that the typical aluminum part is 40-50% lighter than a comparable steel part, the potential is enormous.

It is projected that the entire aluminum industry has the potential to be greenhouse gas neutral by the year 2020 as a result of the growth of
aluminum in the transportation sector and capture of the weight savings.

Achieving this and continuing to address emissions from the transport sector requires that development of lighter weight cars and trucks
must go hand in hand with accelerating efforts to develop a new generation of vehicles that will be powered by alternative fuels.."

Katie--

I'm still analyzing your comments a bit, but just for clarification purposes....

Are you saying you oppose government funding/involvement in stem cell research because you do not think it's the role of government to be involved in scientific discovery?

Or are you saying that because of moral issues the government should not endorse such scientific endeavors?

I see sort of a fusion between the two in your writing, but both lead to contradictory policy ends.

For instance, if you believe in the limited government approach that stem cell research should be conducted privately, then regulations from the government violate the spirit of free private research.

Or, if you oppose embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds, then heavy handed big government regulations and funding to induce government regulations would be the consistent end, not private initiative with non-interference from government.

Morals aside-- The current approach seems to be a King Solomon decision to science where we have big government regulatory oversight, but we want private scientific endeavors to succeed.

In my view, this policy contradiction is damaging both the moral impetus to discuss ethical scientific processes and totally damaging the preconditions needed for scientific breakthrough.

I didn't know we had such progressive local leaders on the Moorpark city council.

Thanks for making us proud!

What is Thousand Oaks or Simi Valley doing about the environment? Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Is he a Democrat or Republican? Her should run for state assembly either way in two years. We need leaders like him in Sac Town.

Do I hear a second? Where is Laura Winchester?

I know Keith Milhouse, but I still have to say that most people who buy hybrids are either dumb or have too much money to burn. Keith, I guess the law practice must be doing well because I know you are not stupid.

Last year when I was car shopping the hybrids were marked $7-8 thousand over the sticker price. Think about how much gasoline that could buy! It is ridiculous to buy a hybrid at those prices. My little car gets 35 MPG which is just fine and I don't have to worry about ever replacing eight batteries.

It is really tough to listen to this cr*p about global warming when we are experiencing weeks of way below average temperatures. Even if it is true there is no proof that it is directly attribuable to mankind. Its like saying evolution is proven - it is not. It is a theory.

Get over it!

I think Milhouse acts like a democrat. Remember the sales tax initiative to pay for the 23 expansion? That was Keith's project. I believe we were told that there was no money to pay for widening the freeway which is why we should vote for the county-wide sales tax increase.

Suprise! The sales tax increase did not pass and yet the 23 is being widened. So much for the doom and gloom. Keith was defeated on that issue.

So now he is an environmentalist...

The basic assumption for most hybrid owners is that they are choosing a hybrid for moral reasons. Even if you disagree with the root causes with climate change, it doesn't change the reason people buy hybrids.

Many people feel that our current liquidation of the treasures God entrusted to us is causing permanent damage. Some people like you feel that God didn't make us powerful to impact the Earth. Others feel that our choices have impacts. The council member made a moral, not financial choice to promote research into helping future generations. If you think it was unneeded so be it. But understand people are trying to protect a gift.

The basic science to climate change can cause havoc to prevailing weather patterns. It can cause extreme weather both hot and cold. Under the basic assumptions and models a cold winter and hot summer are proof of climate change.

When you say evolution is unproven what do you mean? Do you believe animals and plants change over time and adapt to their environments? That is the basis of evolution. Another alternative model holds that God made us in our present form. If that is true to you how old is the Earth?

Altogether, thanks to Moorpark Leaders for fighting for change.

No thanks to Peter Foy who is fighting against the president in his denial that the climate has changed.

How did we elect someone to the right of George W. Bush in a state and region that values our God given resources? What does Peter Foy know that President Bush does not?

A Solomonic decision is a wise one, not a contradictory one. As regards Bush's stem cell policy, his decision to allow research on existing stem cell lines while precluding funding for any new lines was considered solomonic. Moreover, one can easily feel that something is morally unacceptable, yet not call for the government to ban or regulate it.

"liquidation of the treasures God entrusted to us"

This is such an amazingly anthropomorphic arguement wrapped up in environmentalist terms. It assumes that the current state of nature is the only "correct" state, and that any deviation is repugnant. Since the earth has gone through myriad changes, much more drastic than those foreseen by Global Warming, how arrogant to assume that the state that best fits humans is the proper one. Indeed, it seems that throughout history, according to evolution, the environment has changed and the impetus is on life to adapt, not to assert its control over the environment and keep the world in a sort of 20th-century stasis.

"cold winter and hot summer are proof of climate change."

Umm, it seems that winter has always been cold and summer hot. I would think that the word "change" would imply some sort of ... change. So let me get this, the models of Climate change are such that both a cold winter and a warm winter are proof? Both a hot summer and a cold summer are proof? So, no matter what happens, it's proof.

Owen, do you accept that the Earth was a gift from God?

Yes.

In that case, Owen...do you believe that a farmer, when he believes a hard frost is coming, should take steps to protect his vines or should he instead debate the cause of the frost?

The City of simi valley will be doing their part to help the enviorment. Several weeks ago, I requested, and my fellow councilmembers agreed, that the city research "Green Building" development. I believe this IS the future and will save $$$ to the developer and the homeowner. According to Councilmember Glen Becerra the Edison company is a very big supporter of Green Buildings and already has programs in place to help. So hopefully in a very short time, the City of Simi Valley will be encouraging developers to move in this direction.

My husband and I were considering buying one of the new Shea Houses/Castlewood in Big Sky. They have a satellite system that monitors the climate and then triggers the irrigation system to water as needed, saving significant amounts of water.

Owen, do you accept that humans could create massive damage to the ability of the Earth to support life IF we wanted to?

GS: We can't accurately predict the weather 10 days into the future, and you're asking that we make serious economic decisions based on hundred year forecasts? Environmental alarmism has always been wrong. Massive starvation, a new global ice age, now global warming. Even the Valdez oil spill cleaned itself up much faster and more efficiently than anyone predicted. Put simply, there is no consensus on global warming, its causes or consequences. At this point, it's just another ideological witch-hunt.

Brian: What life are you talking about, only humans or all? We can do almost anything we put our minds to. Although it would take a lot of effort, even Nuclear Winter has all but been disproven. I do hope you're going somewhere with these questions.

Owen,

I believe we should care for our gift from our creator. I think we have the power to destroy the ability of the Earth to support all life into future generations.

You agree that we could if we wanted to. I would add to that reckless behavior could also do something.

You really do think that cause and effect have been suspended with co2 emissions? Since the industrial revolution you think it has had zero effect?

New Orleans was just a small table top model compared to what might happen if our leaders don't pull their heads out from their arses and take a breath of honest air. $45M was the price that the Army Corps of engineers said it would take to pump up the levee system to withstand a 17 foot surge. The Administration thought the price too high, partly based on their belief that such a surge would never happen and even if it did happen it wouldn't have been due to human-based climate change (Yes! That's the sort of logic that's been running the Nation for six years).

New Orleans is pretty much a dead city...more dead than if it were hit by a half dozen of Cheney's Iraqi nukes. Instead of $45M to retrofit the levees it would take a hundred billion to rebuild New Orleans. That's the sort of incompetence that the Nation faces and under NO circumstance should the American people give their trust to an Administration that has been so clearly wrong on so many important issues. The White House can not be allowed to take the lead on climate change.

Brian: To say that we have to power to destroy all life on earth is absurd. Though I think a reasonable (and self-centered) concern would be earth's ability to support human life. The earth was warmer a thousand years ago than it is today, far before any human instigated co2 emissions. Moreover, we're in one of the cooler periods of earth's history, and we're coming out of an ice age, so it makes sense that the planet is heating up. The science is nowhere near clear on the issue. Making drastic economic decisions based on such a basis is irresponsible:

"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future ... Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant ... While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation ... If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas." http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=265691

GS: It's the legislature's ridiculous policy of earmarking special projects for their own pet interests that led to the levee disaster in New Orleans. We have known for a long time that the city was vulnerable, but politicians at all levels averted their eyes and put the money in other places. And let me guess, President Bush hates black people.

Owen, you don't seem to understand what the problem really is. Its not about the Earth getting warmer or getting colder. Its about what do we do about the dislocations that WILL occur locally, regionally and continent-wide when normal climactic patterns get disrupted. NO ONE, despite your optimism, denies that sea levels are rising and will continue to rise at least for the next hundred years (the UN says 1000 years). NO ONE argues that ocean currents aren't changing the patterns they've maintained for 10,000 years as a result of a sudden influx of ice melt. NO ONE argues that there won't be serious problems for ALL countries to overcome, from coastal flooding to changes in agricultural patterns to mass migrations to the spread of localized diseases into areas with little resistance. The ONLY thing anyone's arguing about is whether these changes are the doing of man or nature...an idiotic argument that gives our incompetent leaders the political ammunition to DO NOTHING.

Its that DO NOTHING option that caused the destruction of New Orleans, not some accidental oversight, and your sort of sophmoric argument simply gives those leaders more ammunition to bury their heads and hope for the best. And for the record....the problem has nothing to do with president Bush but everything to do with incompetence...and you know that, so stop trying to inject another red herring into the debate.

Forget about WHY it's happening. Ask what we can do to protect our children WHEN it happens.

By sophmoric, do you mean the letter from 60 scientists around the globe? Should we have taken steps to heat up the earth back in the 70s when EVERYONE predicted that we were headed into another ice age?

"And for the record....the problem has nothing to do with president Bush but everything to do with incompetence"

"under NO circumstance should the American people give their trust to an Administration that has been so clearly wrong on so many important issues. The White House can not be allowed to take the lead on climate change."

Please get your story straight.

"The Statesmen," Ambrose Bierce

How blest the land that counts among
Her sons so many good and wise,
To execute great feats of tongue
When troubles rise.

Behold them mounting every stump,
By speech our liberty to guard.
Observe their courage—see them jump,
And come down hard!

"Walk up, walk up!" each cries aloud,
"And learn from me what you must do
To turn aside the thunder cloud,
The earthquake too.

"Beware the wiles of yonder quack
Who stuffs the ears of all that pass.
I—I alone can show that black
Is white as grass."

They shout through all the day and break
The silence of the night as well.
They'd make—I wish they'd go and make—
Of Heaven a Hell.

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=172899

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QvNuJYniFU&mode=related&search=

Charges flew today in DC that the Bush Administration purposely made changes to reports showing the effects of global warming to try and make it look like global warming was not happening. The man appointed by Bush to do this had been a lawyer for big oil.

And, as Al Gore so directly put it, not ONE of those 60 "scientists" ever submitted their conclusions for peer review. Not one. They couldn't because their peers would have had them exposed to the scientific community as charlatans and hacks. Not even yours and Bush's PR campaign can deny the fact: the world's climates are shifting and we have done nothing to prepare.

Robert's Rulz, what did you want me to second?
Keith Millhouse running for Assembly? He's currently a registered Republican, which isn't really up my alley. But hey, good for him for driving a hybrid.

Now tell me, Brian, we're not really looking to Peter Foy as an environmental leader in the county, are we? Someone really needs to disuade him of the idea that his opinion on global warming science means jack.

Maybe he should concentrate on some environmental issue that he can positively impact, like recycling his Red Bull cans.

Or here's an environmental idea - there's this property in the community where...

Ooops, my bad...that's right...it was Jim Dantona who was committed to actually moving forward the effort to hold Boeing/Rocketdyne accountable for poisoning the land.

Foy was the one who said we needed more studies first. Okie dokie - back to the Red Bull cans for him. Hey, it's a start.

So folks! Now its pretty much a done deal....ocean levels WILL rise by 3-20 feet, mean global temperatures WILL rise anywhere from 3-10 degrees (while localand regional climate fluctuations may be many times that), getting water to half the globe's population WILL become a big problem, we WILL see more storms and storm damage, exotic diseases WILL begin to migrate to places that may not have the means to resist them, massive migrations of peoples WILL take place and armies WILL begin to mobilize to either assist of deny those migrations.

Do you care if its all due to nature or man? Or are you anxiously hoping that our leaders are doing something to prepare for a changed future. From the looks of Bush's attempts to bamboozle the Nation on the issues of climate change, don't hope for too much.

The most current and accessible information re: climate change can be found at the Weather Channel's
site. http://climate.weather.com or click below.

We also have biodiesel pumps available in Ventura County. One just opened in the city of Ventura. There is another one in the Oxnard Plains. School Buses on biodiesel would help.

Wayne Pendrey, Director of Greenn Building Council of Ventura County and Ventura County Contractors Association has been working on expanding biodiesel available in Ventura County. He can be reached at
www.gbcvc.org and www.vccainc.com

While many have chosen sides and hardened their positions on the issue, here is an article you might find interesting. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Aw, c'mon, Mike! You can do better than hold up a guy who's a paid shill for the oil industry. Ball's one of the many PR "scientists" BigOil's got on the payroll and he, and all the other oil lobby retainers who can't get a peer-reviewed paper published, can fudge their "evidence" all they want...it won't change the fact that sea levels are rising and the climate engine's going haywire.

Again, it don't matter why it's happening. What matters is WHAT we do about it!

As opposed to all the paid shills on the other side? The one thing I think we can all agree on is that all the researchers are in it for the money. Get grant, deliver result expected.

What I do know is that we're having one of the coldest winters in many years. Last summer was cooler than the one in '34. 25 years ago all the eggheads said we were having global cooling, now they are saying they were wrong then, but they're right now. It seems fear drives research and grant money, most times, better than the desire for achievement. There is no argument on one thing, the earth's climate is cyclical. However there is disagreement on man's effect. To dismiss those who challenge conventional wisdom as "paid shills" is something I wouldn't expect of you, Gary. Remember, the same kind of pressure is used against everyone who challenges the statis quo, from the round earthers to the belief in germs to arguing that atoms exist, to those a few years ago who suggested that there exists dark matter.

The conventional wisdom is always slaughtered by nature. I'm wagering that "man-caused global warming" will be another casualty.

That doesn't change the fact that we should be good stewards of the planet, but we should not fall victim to the hysteria.

I read something recently about all the deaths in the third world the can be directly related to the loss of DDT as an insecticide. And we all remember the Alar scare. I don't know if the apple industry has recovered yet from the junk science that caused that one.

Fact is, the author is a paid consultant to the oil lobby and he's not challenging anything; his job is to produce articles contrary to the overwhelming conclusions of over 99.9% of legitimate, published, peer-reviewed researchers.

That being said, the issue is NOT whether or not the globe is warming or cooling. It's NOT whether or not the changes we're experience are cyclical, anomolies, man-made or natural. All of that's part of the bamboozling that both sides are encouraging...to the harm of our children. The issue is whether or not this latest change goes off the charts and create the sorts of global dislocations that could ruin our kids' futures. The evidence points to the likelihood that it will and the problem is that our national leaders are resisting all attempts to engage in a dialogue that might mitigate the effects of those dislocations.

Osborn, did you just bemoan the loss of DDT? Will that be a new GOP talking point? The GOP - bringing family values and toxins to YOUR neighborhood. Sounds like something old bugman Delay could get behind.

Mike-

Doesn't it seem to be a break for the Republican party to use evidence thresholds at all on climate change?

On Iraq-- Republicans didn't have an open and shut case on WMD's and Bush acted anyway?

If he would've used the evidence threshold, do-nothing republicans invented on climate change, we would have never went to war.

How come Republicans can't use the low threshold of evidence we used on Iraq WMD's to say their may be a problem, so we must act on it?

Seems inconsistent.

THROUGH THE FIRST 6 DAYS OF FEBRUARY...NORTHERN MICHIGAN IS EXPERIENCING AMONG THE TOP 10 COLDEST STARTS TO FEBRUARY IN THE LAST 100 YEARS.

http://www.tv7-4.com/Global/category.asp?C=8549&nav=menu129_4

THE GLOBAL WARMING (COOLING) BAMBOOZLE: this refers to the popular belief, ingrained by years of bias and spin, and force fed to the public by self-interested politicians, corporate sociopaths and special interest bores, that temperatures will rise around the globe until we all die from heat stroke or, conversely, temperatures will lower until all our noses drop off from frost bite.

If you believe either one of the above, then you are only helping to make the Bamboozle a success. This same sort of Bamboozle is heard whenever a controversy arises and whenever someone's pocketbook might have to take a hit. We see it on Rocketdyne: the issue being whether or not the contamination is from past operations or from some other source, natural or man-made. We see it on campaign spending irregularities: the issue being whether or not the irregularities are man-made or natural. We see it on over development and congestion problems: whther or not the problems are man-made or natural. You see, this sort of debate is the easiest one to keep alive so that the real contamination or irregularities or problems never ever get to see the light of day. Cause let's face it...it's only reasonable that you can't solve a problem until you've exhausted every last bit of debate over who caused the problems, right?

You're right. That's because, politically, it's about using the issue to gain ground on your opponent (regardless of side,) not doing what's best for everyone.

A perfect example, "Freon versus ozone," a theory now imbedded in the popular culture and treated as fact. What no one remembers is that the studies that made the original connection were funded by duPont, where they had just patented R-134, a replacement for freon and CFC's.

It's up to us to separate the facts from the hysteria and act responsibly. Everyone wants energy independence but no one wants oil exploration. You have the bird folks trying to stop the wind turbines, the fish people trying to stop the tide generators, the animal people trying to stop solar farms, pipe lines and drilling, and the general vapors everyone gets when you even mention nuclear (even though many countries we think of as enlightened use nukes.)

We have to move this debate from the political to the practical and rid ourselves of the demagogues. Only then can we make thing better for everyone.

I hear ya!

Environmentalism: Killing Third World Children Through First World Arrogance

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9169

Owen:

Are you suggesting we change American law to allow DDT use in the US again?

Mike: How come republicans can use such a low threshold of evidence to act on WMD in Iraq, yet when action is wanting to be taken on global warming, the evidence threshold is placed ridiculously high.

I also noticed you work or worked for an energy exploration company on the Ventura Republican party website. How come when people present facts opposed to the energy industry they are called demagoges, but when people who work for energy company's argue against global warming, they are not demagoges?

Owen:

There is mixed evidence on DDT use just as there is on climate change, yet you want to use DDT while do nothing on climate change?

How can you advocate DDT use with mixed evidence, yet say we shouldn't act on climate change?

Sounds pretty inconsistent.

Oh Brian you are so cute to think that Peter Foy has any ability to think. He spits out what others tell him. He was probably trying to mimic W's position and of course, blew that. The guy couldn't think his way out of a paper bag.

Why are we even considering or care what Peter Foy thinks? He may be representing the East County, but lets be realistic the East County is unrepresented.

DDT is proven to kill the mosquitoes that carry so many diseases, but there is no clear evidence of its danger to humans.

Human responses to climate change are proven to cause massive fiscal damage, but there is no clear idea on what causes climate change, and how to stop it.

The evidentiary situation of the two situations are effectively reversed.