Today’s Announcement on New Fuel Efficiency/Auto Emissions Standards

Obama did not fire any UAW worker. The U.S will withdraw from Iraq as scheduled. Guatanamo will be closed as scheduled and there is nothing to explain about NAFTA. The only pitfall i see is Afghanistan. The Economy is rebouding. Most of my friends have all gotten new jobs, the stock market is picking up, Healthcare will most likely be passed. By the time the Stimulus kicks in next year, we will have a stronger Economy growth.Infact, I tend to agree more with Obama on his foreign policies than his domestic policies.

I’m sorry, concerning a comment made in the article…who buys their $30,000 car and pays for it in 16 months? Maybe that official who stated that, but not anyone I know!!

I may have gone daft.. but, now the sound of the name, Hillary, wafts like a warm island breeze..

Tell me how higher gas mileage standards, tighter emissions standards, and a massive new cap-and-trade tax on energy are supposed to help the American auto companies–who are already being liquidated to pay for union pension funds??

And, you will never guess who helped craft this legislation– Green activists, including one of Al Gore’s environmental groups. Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-California) used USCAP’s proposals as a blueprint for climate legislation. The Washington Times reported that the sweeping climate bill includes a provision that benefits Duke Energy Corp., a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), whose climate plan released in January the lawmakers have frequently called a “blueprint” for their climate legislation. The Times continued:
At the kickoff to hearings last week on the massive climate bill, Myron Ebell, climate and energy policy director for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told lawmakers, “The authors of the draft bill have invited the beneficiaries of what could turn out to be the biggest transfer of wealth from consumers to special interests in American history to write the rules for this legalized plunder.”
——-
That is from an article at american issues
Did I mention Al Gore flat out lied when he claimed he did not make any money from his “green” companies and initiatives. He lied during congressional hearings recently.
If he were republican he would be indicted for this, just as the Scooter Libbey was indicted for supposedly lying (not for outing Plame as most dems believe). But Gore being a dem is expected to lie and dems openly transfer taxpayer money to special interests with no benefit to taxpayers and usually with accompanying job losses and higher unemployment as in this case and with the auto makers.

I am sorry but I just cannot get behind someone about fuel effeciency when he takes out AF1 almost every day to make a speech in different states and has to take along all those non fuel effecient cars for the SS. How much fuel does all this take?

MNM writes:
`There will be fuel savings but the cost of the car will go up 1600-3000 dollars, so it may not be an overall savings and it may cause people to keep their other cars a lot longer.`
—————————————
Where do you get your facts from? Fox new? The Auto industry is saying the cars will cost $600 to $800 more. And even if we consider your own fictitious figure, car owners will still ave more from gas. Andh do you own a car?

The timing of this just feels so…unnecessary.

Maria:”I am sorry but I just cannot get behind someone about fuel effeciency when he takes out AF1 almost every day to make a speech in different states and has to take along all those non fuel effecient cars for the SS. How much fuel does all this take?”
Are you serious? Would you prefer our elected leader travel on foot pulling the Secret Service in a wagon or something? His job is to lead the country, the whole country. It is entirely appropriate that he goes out to see the people, including-especially- the ones waving signs and shouting angrily.

Fascist Hyena:”And why should they believe him?”
Why should we believe what you cut and paste from a random blog, that was itself cherry picking results from the Investor Business Daily’s polling partner? Why don’t you also include these results:
“The IBD/TIPP Presidential Leadership Index fell to 65.4 in March from 71 in February, Obama’s first reading. He has majority support across all age, income and regional groups.
Other polls have put his numbers at a similar level. A late February Gallup poll gave Obama a 67% approval rating.”

How does President Obama expect to get 38 mpg ratings on our cars without having to plug them into our walls. If we do this we aren’t solving anything because oil produces electricity anyway. We are just using oil from a different source.

tjp612:”How am I being “helped”? By restricting my future choices in vehicle purchases?”
Our current total economic reliance on imported oil is in no one’s best interest. This is a prudent way to mitigate it slowly over time, rather than wait until the eve of the Iran war to suddenly panic about how our nation is going to be paralyzed if they strike at Saudi oil facilities or something.
You also cannot purchase a tank to drive on the street, dump your oil on the interstate, or drive a car that lights nearby shrubs on fire as it passes. Most members of society can deal with such restrictions on their choice.

Did you know, you can get even more gas mileage out of the suicide clown cars cars if you build them out of tin-foil.
I submit that it’s far easier to change out the president than it is to change America to a socialists paradise.

“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”

CO2-caused Global Warming is an unproven theory which is contradicted by a host of evidence. A ‘consensus’ does not make that theory true. Science is not a democracy or a dictatorship.
The theory of CO2-caused Global Warming has been comandeered by ruthless politicians whose goals are to make personal profits from ‘carbon trading’ and to achieve power and dominance through social engineering.
Al Gore and Barack Obama both have made substantial financial investments in the ‘carbon trading’ brokerage industry, and GW computer modeler James Hansen has reicieved many millions of dollars in grants for his continuing research.
Barack Obama has already openly endorsed the use of toxic aersol spraying to create ‘chemtrails’ to reduce the course of the highly questionable CO2-caused Global Warming. That is not the ‘Precautionary Principle’. That is an extremely dangerous and costly treatment for a problem which has not been proven to exist.

Fleagle:”CO2-caused Global Warming is an unproven theory which is contradicted by a host of evidence.”
So is the theory that smoking causes cancer, gravity, relativity and pretty much everything. If you have a SCIENTIFIC problem with it, take your host of evidence to Exxon for funding and start publishing. The scientific community has shown no reluctance to putting forward information that contradicts climate change; indeed, I suspect every bit of your ‘contradictory evidence’ was funded, collected, documented, and released by the same scientists who support the current theory.

=== CAFE regulations and every single inspection required to enforce them exist now. ===
I don’t think you are correct. Maybe you should do a google because they don’t check the emission levels where I live.

I also say vote no on all proprs because they represent weak political will on the part of the legislature and the governor.
Posted by: Ryan C
You vote like a right winger. The Gipper would be hopeful.

He should have really went for broke and demanded 35.6 mpg.

Fascist Hyena:”The American people have caught on to this fraudulent nonsense:
“Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.”"
So now science is by popular vote?

tjp612:”Ridiculous…”
Can you answer my point? Do you or do you not accept that in society choice is often restricted to protect society’s interests? Or do you reject the notion that being slavishly devoted to the house of Saud for our economic well being is not a good idea?

“The American people have caught on to this fraudulent nonsense”
ROFLMAO!
Actually its gullible Republicans who believe the right wing talking heads telling them its snowing outside so global warming is impossible.

I love it that he’s claiming an “unprecedented change” (on tv right now). Yeah, there’s a reason for that. It isn’t like it would have been difficult for any President to do. Making up new rules is the easy part.

“Can you answer my point?”
Did you have a point?

tjp612:”Did you have a point?”
I have repeated my post in it’s entirety below and leave to anyone reading to make their own conclusions.
“Can you answer my point? Do you or do you not accept that in society choice is often restricted to protect society’s interests? Or do you reject the notion that being slavishly devoted to the house of Saud for our economic well being is not a good idea?”

jhw “I suspect every bit of your ‘contradictory evidence’ was funded, collected, documented, and released by the same scientists who support the current theory.”
I suspect you want to believe this so you do not have to question your belief in what the Democrat leadership is telling you. So be it.

Fleagle:”I suspect you want to believe this so you do not have to question your belief in what the Democrat leadership is telling you.”
I don’t care what the Democrat leadership says about it, I accept the findings of the National Academy of Science of the US, and the National Academy of Science (or equivalent non-partisan scientific body) of every other first world nation. (The same as I accept their findings on the safety of nuclear power, importance of vaccinations, effectiveness of fluoride in water, LELs for various toxics, etc.)

“200 Scientists including Nobel winners (which doesn’t mean too much they gave prizes to Gore and Carter) twice
took out ad’s in papers questioning man-made impact on global warming.”
I wonder who paid for that ad.
And since we’re playing the poll and popularity game
A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.
The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.
In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.

MNM @ 12:41 — Where did you get your facts from, a comic book or video game on shooting down anything not resembling right wing figures? It was the most contorted, anti-science dribble I’ve ever read. The “quiet” sun? LOL!

In fact, new research, based on sound science, tells us that we are entering a period of global cooling”
ROFLMAO!
Right wingers will swallow anything FoxNews gives them in this case the idiocy that because its cold out global warming cannot be real.

I reject the notion that we have resources within our own borders that we do not utilize due to the liberal agenda.
****************************************************
So the oil companies not doing anything first on millions of acres of already leased lands is a part of a liberal agenda?

ROFLMAO!
Right wingers will swallow anything FoxNews gives them in this case the idiocy that because its cold out global warming cannot be real.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 19, 2009 12:54:33 PM
—-
Your ignorance is breathtaking!
The Sun Also Sets
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore’s mythical “consensus.” Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.
Related Topics: Global Warming
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.
To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better “eyes” with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth’s climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.
And they’re worried about global cooling, not warming.
Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada’s National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Again, all Obama is doing is accelerating the time table.
==========
Yes. And as I said, that’s the easy part. It’s making sure it’s actually a good idea to do so that’s the tough part.
What does it say that he has the King and Queen of poor decisions that kill economies up there with him? I can think of no worse people to endorse a decision than Granholm and Arnold.

“Again, all Obama is doing is accelerating the time table.”
Hmm…sounds similar to announcement made regarding Gitmo…making the speech is the easy part.

AND THIS I BELIEVE IS FROM LIBERAL CBS
Global cooling ahead
———
Written by Charles Osgood, The Osgood File
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
I know you’ve already got a lot to worry about as it is, but something rather odd is going on — on the Sun.
The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity — and last year, it was supposed to have heated up — and, at its peak, would have a tumultuous boiling atmosphere, spitting out flares and huge chunks of super-hot gas.
Instead, it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity. Right now, the sun is the dimmest it’s been in nearly a century.
Did you know that? It’s true. Astronomers are baffled by it, but has the press covered the story? Hardly at all. Is the government doing anything about it? No, it’s not even in the Obama budget or any Congressional earmarks.

MNM:”Your ignorance is breathtaking!”
Do you want to block quote Dr Tapping’s response to that misrepresentation of his work too? The one from the official webpage of Canada’s National Research Council?
“At this point it is completely unjustified to see current solar behaviour as an indication of any departure from its what the Sun has been doing for at least the last 300 years.”
As a sidenote, like every other significant scientific body, Canada’s National Research Council supports the conclusions of the 2001 IPCC report.

“Huh…who would’ve thunk that big burning ball of gas in sky actually impacts our climate.”
Right wing critical thinking at its finest.
Its right up there with its cold out there so global warming cannot exist.

“Right wing critical thinking at its finest.”
Perhaps you cannot grasp sarcasm?
BTW – Do you have an answer to the two questions I posed in prior post?

You are divorced from reality. We had a GOP president and Congress for 6 years during historically high oil prices yet in your fantasy land there is still enough off limits reserves to literally triple our nation oil production. Even the most optimistic estimates do not support your outlandish theories.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 19, 2009 1:04:30 PM
——
Absolute garbage.
When the “drill baby drill” phenomenon was swirling around before the election, dems, who controlled congress agreed to open offshore drilling and passed legislation to do so.
Following the election, and quietly with the cooperation of the Obamedia to not advertise this, they made illegal any new offshore drilling.
The drilling opportunities were closed off during prior administrations and Bush allowed them to be reopened so drilling could commence. Dems kept this from happening until just before the election and the window closed quickly.
During the time republicans controlled congress the gas prices did not reach the massive highs they had when dems had congress during the last 2 years of Bush, which of course prompted the “drill baby drill”.
Clinton forbade it as well and claimed it would take a decade and would make no sense and so on. A ddecade later we can say “if only”
Bush allowed it, dems stopped it, and in a few years we will be back to “if only”
Dems are abject morons on this topic.
Even if you argue we would still need some oil from elsewhere, drilling our own would certainly achieve the goal as stated “reduce dependence on foreign oil”.

tjp612:”Q1. Do any of you know what the actual rise in sea levels has been over the past 50 years?
Q2. If so, do you know how this rise compares to historical rises in sea levels? ”
This information is summarized in chapter 11 of the 2001 IPCC report with full references to original reports and data sets.
Your question is pretty meaningless without stating a location for the sea level rise, and your neglect of the effect of thermal expansion increasing rate of rise and increased precipitation due to higher atmospheric temperatures decreasing rate of rise shows a fundamental failure to understand the basic science.
Finally, you said:”A common assertion of AGW supporters is the expected rise of sea levels due to melting of polar ice caps”
The north ice cap IS FLOATING. It’s melting impacts sea levels only through thermal effects – this is 2000+ year old science you seem to not be understanding.

The only way you can get 39/30 mpg is if you are driving a hybrid vehicle..I drive a Toyota hybrid and love it; however, there are draw backs…Battery life 7 years, average 2500.00 up to replace, cannot tow anything over 1500 pounds, YOU CAN NOT WORK ON THEM, you need to find a TRAINED CERTIFIED MECHANIC who has special training on hybrids, shock factor equals death, therefore the maintenance costs on hybrids are more expensive, hybrids are much more expensive to purchase, talking thousands not hundreds, batteries are expensive as China controls much of the world’s market in acid lead gotta import the lead to make the batteries. ….I can afford it..a lot cannot..Guess you could always drive a Smart car or comparable size vehicle..Anyone want to drive a Smart car on Americas’ freeways??? When you are talking hybrid on a massive scale, you will affect other markets as well it’s not as simple as getting great gas mileage..there will be an economic downside to other industries as well…

“this weeks gallup poll release has
32% dems
32% repub.
34% independent”
Try to learn about single polls not being trends.
Gallup just wrote about aggregate polling of party id.
- The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup. Since the first year of George W. Bush’s presidency in 2001, the Republican Party has maintained its support only among frequent churchgoers, with conservatives and senior citizens showing minimal decline.
So far in 2009, aggregated Gallup Poll data show the divide on leaned party identification is 53% Democratic and 39% Republican — a marked change from 2001, when the parties were evenly matched, according to an average of all of that year’s Gallup Polls. That represents a loss of five points for the Republicans and a gain of eight points for the Democrats.

“Science is not done by public vote nor should it be”
Unless it supports the liberal agenda…
e.g., “thousands of scientists agree that man-made activities are responsible for climate change”
ROFLMAO!
Why would I not be surprised that a right winger can’t tell scientific consensus from a online FoxNews poll.

So I think you are mistaken with your sarcastic insults. Looks like dems are the ones fleeing, as that is the number that has been dropping!
***************************************************
Of course, anti-science is comparable to anti-reality posturng. Good Day.

Posted by: jhw539 | May 19, 2009 1:23:39 PM
You seem to have an answer to my questions as you referenced a report. Care to share?

Name the bill that following the election, the Democrats passed and then Bush signed that made new offshore drilling illegal.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 19, 2009 1:33:52 PM
——
JUST SO WE DON’T FORGET OBAMA HAD A HAND IN RESTRICTING THE OFFSHORE DRILLING TOO!
Today, the Obama Administration blocked offshore drilling.
SFGate reported:
President Obama is shelving a plan announced in the final days of the Bush administration to open much of the U.S. coast to oil drilling, including 130 million acres off California’s coast from Mendocino to San Diego.
On Tuesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar ordered the plan be put on hold while his agency conducts a 180-day review of the country’s offshore oil and gas resources. Salazar’s critical comments about the plan signaled that the new administration will seek to rewrite it if not completely scrap it.
The Bush proposal “opened the possibility of oil and gas leases along the entire Eastern seaboard, portions of offshore California and the far eastern Gulf of Mexico with almost no consultation from states, industry or community input,” Salazar said at a news conference in Washington. “In my view it was a headlong rush of the worst kind.”
But, honestly… Barack Obama is going to free America from our dependence on foreign oil.
He’s going to create or save(?) 4 million jobs.

Of course, anti-science is comparable to anti-reality posturng. Good Day.
Posted by: kat | May 19, 2009 1:35:41 PM
——-
You must be speaking of dems because I quote 2 pollsters, both respected, and cite scientific studies.
If you are upset that Obama is such a lousy president that repbulicans and dems are now equal in party identification you should take that up with him and his horrific policy decisions and debt spending beyond anyone’s wildest imagination.
So good day to you!

Any time a politician tells you that the science is “settled” on some matter, you should reach for your revolver. Al Gore has been telling this lie for a number of years now, and has used disgraceful tactics to silence and smear those who dare disagree.
It was once settled science that the planets revolved around the earth. It was once settled science that Newton’s Laws told us all there was to know about bodies in motion. It was once settled science that the most effective treatment for certain ailments was to bleed them by placing leeches on their bodies.
For all his deceitful propaganda, Gore has failed to sell his case to the American people, who at the end of the day are adept at sniffing out fraud.

Ask anyone if they would trade an increase of 10 mpg for increased fed gas tax of 5 cents per gallon of gas.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 19, 2009 1:45:28 PM
——
Dems have proposed that they increase taxes enough to keep gas at a minimum of $4 /gallon, so I don’t think we can assume it will be a nickel tax increase.
We don’t know what they will do. We do know that they have spoken of the $4 target however,.
So now we have to use the mileage savings to make up for the thousands of dollars more the car will cost us. (Obama says 1300 the industry says 7000/car, we can assume it is somewhere in between), and then we top it off with now having to balance the gas economy savings with increased taxes,.
How many more things will this small gas savings have to account for. Obama gives a savings with one hand and taxes it away in two more with more expensive cars and higher gas taxes.

This is from Rasmussen (according to the Fordham University study, the most accurate pollster in America):
“Tuesday, May 12, 2009
“Republican candidates still lead Democrats by a single point this week in the Generic Congressional Ballot.
“For the second straight week, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 40% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 39% would choose the Democrat.
“This is the third week in a row – and just the fourth time in more than five years of Rasmussen polling – that the GOP has held such a lead.”

ROFLMAO! (There, I win!)

“ROFLMAO!
Ask anyone if they would trade an increase of 10 mpg for increased fed gas tax of 5 cents per gallon of gas.”
Sure, I’d take that trade-off as I would benefit, especially at higher gas prices. The fundamental point you seem to miss (or move past as it is inconvenient) is that the government is dependent on these fuel tax revenues. As consumption drops (per the libs agenda), fuel tax revenues will decrease. How will the government replace these “lost” funds? By creating new taxes and/or increasing existing taxes.

The National Academy of Science of every first world nation has reviewed and, after all their comments were considered and responded to (tens and thousands total), have endorsed the IPCC summary. That you so offhandedly dismiss the scientific bodies that Einstein, Edison, and Bell (to name a very few) were proud to be elected to nicely summarizes your argument.

“This is from Rasmussen (according to the Fordham University study, the most accurate pollster in America):”
ROFLMAO!
The Fordham university professor that needed to round up McCain’s total (45.6% to 46%) and round down Obama’s (from 52.9% to 52%) to make Rasmussen the most accurate pollster!
No wonder Scottie links to that as an advertisement, he obviously has no problem with faulty numbers provided they give him the result he wants.

“Republican candidates still lead Democrats by a single point this week in the Generic Congressional Ballot.”
RCP’s poll compilation on generic congressional vote.
Democrats are listed first.
RCP Average 41.3 37.0 Democrats +4.3
Democracy Corps (D) 46 43 Democrats +3
Rasmussen Reports 39 40 Republicans +1
Quinnipiac 41 34 Democrats +7
Diageo/Hotline 39 31 Democrats +8

“Yes, you did. Remember, the Government always gets theirs. The lost gas tax revenues will be made up elsewhere. There is no free ride.”
Did you miss where I discussed raising the fed gas tax?

RCP Average 41.3 37.0 Democrats +4.3
Democracy Corps (D) 46 43 Democrats +3
Rasmussen Reports 39 40 Republicans +1
Quinnipiac 41 34 Democrats +7
Diageo/Hotline 39 31 Democrats +8
Posted by: Ryan C | May 19, 2009 2:12:41 PM

“Yet, we humans in our brief time on Earth are arrogant enough to believe that we have a significant impact in the cycles of climate change that have occurred over millions of years.”
It was therefore also arrogant to believe that the little puffs of aerosol coming out of our spray cans could possibly affect the atmosphere, that is until a huge hole opened up in the ozone layer over the South Pole.

“Did you miss where I discussed raising the fed gas tax?”
Do you dispute that there is no net savings to consumers whether we drive vehicles that achieve 30 mpg or 40 mpg? In fact, we’ll probably pay more as the liberal agenda is pushed down our collective throats:
- Vehicles will cost more (to meet emission standards)
- We’ll take fewer trips to the pump, but these “savings” will be offset by higher fuel taxes or other taxes as government seeks to regain “lost” revenue
- We’ll have less choice in the vehicles we drive
Do these sound like the crazy words of someone who has experienced a lobotomy?
Always remember, in the end the Libs & government always gets their take.

tjp612:”"the scientific bodies that Einstein, Edison, and Bell (to name a very few) were proud to be elected” have devolved from truly scientific non-partisan organizations to politically-motivated left-leaning shapers of opinion based on ideology and, at times, incomplete science at best, bad/non-science at worst.”
Whatever. You reject the foremost scientific bodies in the world. Funny that you don’t reject the medicines, computers, agricultural, or other fruits of their current members. You replace them with… what exactly? Rush and Hannity? Go ahead and believe them over partisan idiots like Stephen Hawkins or Gordon Moore (of Moore’s Law fame and a member of the AAAS, who has also endorsed the IPCC’s summary report).

Where’d fascist go?
C’mon tell me again about the Fordham professor and Rasmussen’s accuracy, I need a good laugh.

“Tongue-tied and deflecting response. I can change the question to suit your wishes, but that change the results?”
I asked a couple of straight-forward questions and have yet to receive a straight-forward answer. The annual rise in sea levels over the past 50 years is 50% of historical average (over past 17,000 years). While the AGW fanatics (including Obama) would have you think otherwise, the oceans are not rising to a degree that is historically beyond natural cycles.

“If your cars goes from getting 20 mpg to 30 mpg, how much would the gas tax have to rise to overtake your savings with gas at $2 a gallon?”
The math to answer this question is easy. What you have not answered is how will the government offset losses in fuel tax revenue? (hint: it won’t be by cutting costs)

“The math to answer this question is easy.”
So do it for us.
“What you have not answered is how will the government offset losses in fuel tax revenue? (hint: it won’t be by cutting costs)”
Are you really that dense?
I proposed a 5 cent hike in the fed gas tax.
That’s over a 25% increase which means it would be offsetting a 25% reduction in gas tax revenues, which means there was 25% less gas consumed.

Let us take a joyful stroll down memory lane to revisit the settled science as it stood thirty or forty years ago:
“In the 1960s and 1970s, Global Cooling was all the fashion. Newsweek warned of it. Popular books warned of the return of the ice. Aircraft contrails, dust and sulfates from coal power plants, volcanoes, desertification, solar variation, galactic dust clouds, fires from global nuclear war (has everyone really forgotten Nuclear Winter? Or is that meme still happily cohabitating with Global Warming in millions of muddled minds?), etc., would all combine to freeze the Earth. No political careers were built on fears of a milder Earth.
“Fashions change. As Michael Crichton points out in State of Fear, one year it suddenly became unfashionable to look at cooling factors in the Earth’s climate. Today’s academic climatologists are forced to publish within the paradigm that the Earth is warming, that this trend will continue regardless of natural events, and that warming is bad. Major media is even more constrained; Newsweek is not running any stories on the cooling effects of aircraft contrails or the dust clouds from the nomads who yearly expand the Sahara Desert.
“The Earth may well have warmed a tenth of a degree or two, if you pick the right starting and ending year; climate fluctuates for many reasons. But the other package-deal premises of the Global Warming meme are completely without scientific basis. There is no scientific reason to believe that the minuscule greenhouse effect from 20th century fossil fuel burning can overcome the sun-shrouding effects of a major volcano or asteroid hit. We know that either of these types of events is going to happen sometime; we just don’t know when (maybe 2036, if you’re the betting sort). And either one will pitch the Earth right back into an Ice Age.”
OMG! ROFLMAO!

“Obama’s job approval ratings (approval first)…”
They’re indistinguishable from those of G.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, G.H.W. Bush and Nixon at this point in their presidencies.
OMG! ROFLMAO!

Posted by: Skip | May 19, 2009 2:46:06 PM
Skip,
Your point is valid. The larger point is that the “climate change” is real and has happened for millions of years, and is happening today. “Anthropogenic Global Warming” is term we humans invented to overestimate our effect on naturally occurring climate change while promoting the Liberal agenda/power-grab.

I suppose some might prefer that I cite Newsweek (which indeed cites a fiction writer–science fiction, at that–in defense of its looniness):
“It took 31 years, but Newsweek magazine admitted it was incorrect about climate change. In a nearly 1,000-word correction, Senior Editor Jerry Adler finally agreed that a 1975 piece on global cooling ‘was so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future.’
“Even then, Adler wasn’t quite willing to blame Newsweek for the incredible failure. ‘In fact, the story wasn’t ‘wrong’ in the journalistic sense of “inaccurate,”‘ he claimed. ‘Some scientists indeed thought the Earth might be cooling in the 1970s, and some laymen – even one as sophisticated and well-educated as Isaac Asimov – saw potentially dire implications for climate and food production,’ Adler added.”

“But if I word it like this: “The oceans have risen half as much as they did when all the ice from the last ice age melted.”
It sounds like a lot then doesn’t it?”
Actually, that is inaccurate. At the onset of the end of the last glacial period (~8,000 years ago), the annual rise in sea levels was approx. six-sixteenths of an inch (~6/16″). Prior to the end of the last glacial period (9,000-14,000 years ago), annual average sea level rise were approx. eight-sixteenths of an inch (~8/16″). Current average annual rise in sea level is <2/16" per year.

“,,,even though I have told you that professor got the numbers wrong.”
Given the choice between you and the professor, I’ll go with the professor every time.
And how does Obama compare to Nixon?
ROFLMAO! OMG!

“Actually, that is inaccurate”
I wasn’t disputing the numbers when you claimed a 50% rise compared to the average for 17,000 years, I was disputing how you were using that data. You know, the glass being 50% full or 50% empty.

“I love how you are so desperate to debunk a collection of data even though you have little idea what you are talking about.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ryan C ,
LOL, It is not often that a man write his own epitaph on a blog!

“f they believe so much in “Global Warming” – explain the following:”
Simple, Michele Malkin is a right wing liar.

Looks like the taxpayers are paying all GM debt in full, through a dummy corportation, forgiving all the billions in bailout, and then giving the company to the UAW and some other undesignated bondholders.
Bend over taxpayers Obama just bought himself a heap of political support at your expense! Of course the jobs are still going to China.
Read a partial of the article from Reuters below. I am sure you won’t find it on US media outlets:
NEW YORK, May 19 (Reuters) – General Motors Corp’s (GM.N) plan for a bankruptcy filing involves a quick sale of the company’s healthy assets to a new company initially owned by the U.S. government, a source familiar with the situation said on Tuesday.

“Out of people filing tax returns, 40% pay no net income taxes…”
Quod erat demonstrandum.

The government has given GM until June 1 to restructure its operations to lower its debt burden and employee costs.
If those talks failed, the company has said it would follow rival Chrysler LLC into bankruptcy.
Setting up a new company to buy the healthy assets is aimed at reassuring consumers who might not be willing to make a major purchase from a bankrupt company, fearing it would not honor warranties or provide service.
The board of the new company would be established with the tacit approval of the government. Fritz Henderson, who took the helm of GM earlier this year after the government pushed out Rick Wagoner, would likely head the new company, the source said.
GM could not be immediately reached for comment.
GM shares were up about 9 percent at $1.29. (Editing by Gerald E. McCormick)
Posted by: Ryan C | May 19, 2009 3:53:24 PM
————–
This does not negate that the US treasury set up a dummy corp to funnel money into GM to pay it’s debt in full, before the handoff to the unions.
That they are expected to use some of their assets is to be expected and assets ARE NOT DEBT.
No wonder the stock went up.
The taxpayers pay all the debt, the union gets the company wrapped in a bow, AND they are taking the jobs to china any how.
Of course the talks will fail, the unions have no incentive to cut a deal. If they sit tight they get the whole company and no debt.
Obama and Geithner have already set up the dummy corp to pay it off.

“Out of people filing tax returns, 40% pay no net income taxes, however they do pay the various payroll taxes that (wait for it) provide for the entitlement programs these taxpayers are supposedly freeloading from.”
————————————–
Exactly what programs do you believe are funded by other payroll deductions?

“Exactly what programs do you believe are funded by other payroll deductions”
Medicare, Social Security and Umemployment.

“”Exactly what programs do you believe are funded by other payroll deductions”
Medicare, Social Security and Umemployment.
”
Ryan, Ryan, Ryan,…..
Medicare & SS are on the verge of collapse because more is being taken out than is going in. By the way, Both Dem & Repub administrations having been playing
for someone who was supposedly so up on the contents of the “Stimulator”, WHY would we have needed to include all those extra Unemployment beneifits in it if it was fully funded by these paltry amounts that taken out of our checks?
Obviously you have never been unemployed, or you would realize that if you out of work for any length of time, you will take out MUCH more than you pay in!
If you doubt this, take a look at the mess in the great coomonwealth that gave us Bumbling Barney Frank!…beter yet, try it for yourself and learn first hand…
As someone else already stated, we forgive you, we all know how fundamental math skills escape you liberals. That is why the only numbers we ever see you throw up are those you play cut & paste with from the first google search you find.
By the way, you still clinging to that lie about Obama not raising taxes?

“Medicare & SS are on the verge of collapse because more is being taken out than is going in. By the way, Both Dem & Repub administrations having been playing”
Social Security will be solvent thru 2040. There are several ways to keep it solvent for far longer including raising the retirement age or removing the cap.
Medicare is solvent thru 2020 and will be part of the healthcare system reform that is currently being discussed.
“for someone who was supposedly so up on the contents of the “Stimulator”, WHY would we have needed to include all those extra Unemployment beneifits in it if it was fully funded by these paltry amounts that taken out of our checks?”
Because it was an extension of unemployment beyond what the system was designed for and had collected revenue for.
“Obviously you have never been unemployed, or you would realize that if you out of work for any length of time, you will take out MUCH more than you pay in!”
Another Joe the Plumber who feeds at the public trough then claims those using the system to be freeloaders?

“As someone else already stated, we forgive you, we all know how fundamental math skills escape you liberals.”
It doesn’t matter how good you are at math if the conclusions you draw from the calculations are biased. How many times have I heard right-wingers say things like ‘lowering taxes on capital gains increases revenues’ and then post a whole list of stats to try and back it up.

“It doesn’t matter how good you are at math if the conclusions you draw from the calculations are biased.”
Skip,
Calculations are not biased. You can check my work if you wish. Assumptions:
Federal gas tax: 18.4%
State gas tax (ave.): 20.8%
Calculated lost tax revenues due to fuel efficiency gain of 10 mpg. Increases in tax revenue to “offset” gains in fuel efficency (10 mpg) are:
$0.06/gal. Federal
$0.07/gal. State
$0.13/gal. Total tax required
States with higher gas taxes would see higher thresholds and vice-versa (look out NY, PA, and WI – tax rates 30%+)

“Calculated lost tax revenues due to fuel efficiency gain of 10 mpg. Increases in tax revenue to “offset” gains in fuel efficency (10 mpg) are:
$0.06/gal. Federal
$0.07/gal. State
$0.13/gal. Total tax required”
Again savings for the consumer in fuel costs of 25% per gallon is somehow overtaken by a tax increase of 13 cents.

“I’m not disputing your calculations, they might be right, but what is your conclusion? We shouldn’t increase the fuel efficiency of our auto fleet because it will reduce fuel tax revenues. Right?”
I am also interested in the answer to this from a self described expert in macroeconomics.

@ Ryan C,
Sorry for delay in getting back to you. I must admit, you are getting better in your analysis, but you are not quite there. Let’s continue using your example (for simplicity, we’ll disregard any increases in federal and state fuel charges) to further the analysis.
Car A gets 30 mpg. Car B gets 40 mpg.
Both drive 15,000 miles in a year.
Assume $2 per gallon of gas.
Car A uses 500 gallons to get to 15K.
Car B uses 375 gallons to get to 15K
Car B would see a fuel savings of $250 over the course of the year.
Now, let’s dig little deeper as we have not yet included investment costs (i.e., additional costs per vehicle to improve efficiency/reduce emissions). I’ve seen various estimates from $600 – $2,000. Let’s assume $1,300 from article I saw on BBC site.
So, to recoup additional costs ($1,300) @ 15,000 miles per year, the payback period would be 5.2 years. But, I could instead place this $1,300 in a long-term CD earning 2.1% (B of A website). Therefore, the discounted cost is $1,448 which yields a break-even of 5.8 years.
But, we’re not quite done. The EPA uses an assumption of 12,000 miles driven per year in its estimates. So, at 12,000 miles driven per year, annual savings of Car B is $200/year. Again, using a discount rate of 2.1% (5 year CD rate), the discounted additional cost is $1,488 which yields a break-even of 7.4 years. This would not appear to be a good investment from my point of view, particularly since I only drive ~8,000 miles per year (breakeven approaches 8 years)
To this point, the analysis does not include any increases in taxes (you know it’s coming, afterall, this is the Obama administration). To be fair, as gas prices rise, Car B becomes more attractive. At $3/gal. the breakeven is 4.7 years and at $4/gal. the breakeven is 3.5 years. So, it would come as no surprise that liberals might actually prefer higher gas prices as these higher prices further their cause (“”I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment (in gas prices)” Barack Obama, June 2008).
So there you go. Enjoy it, Champ!
tjp612
a.k.a. “self described expert in macroeconomics” (per Ryan C)