Holy Crap!

No pun intended. I saw this coming a long time ago.  Can you believe this?  It's almost like a nightmare, the only difference between this and a nightmare is we can wake up from the nightmare. 

Via Fox News:

Flat Tax?

Farmers in Estonia are facing a new gas tax. But it might not be what you're thinking. Cattle ranchers in the Eastern European country have started receiving notices that they will be taxed for methane gas emissions from their cows.

Cows produce large quantities of methane gas through belching and flatulence when they digest grass. Some environmental estimates say that cows account for 15-25 percent of the world's gas emissions and a single cow can produce 350 liters of methane and up to 1,500 liters of carbon dioxide in a single say.

A spokesman for the country's main opposition party — the People's Union of Estonia — calls the new tax a "huge surprise." There is no other European Union country that imposes a flatulence tax on its farmers.

Oh yeah, before I forget, I'll call out this one as well:  Someone will come back and say "You got that from Fox News, so it's just another conservative lie!"

Did I not say global warming climate change was nothing more than an excuse to gain more political power and money?  I also said it here, and here.
Chalk yet another one up for me. This is what the insane madness of liberalism buys you, folks.

Consider all of this a big "I told you so."

On a related note, this piece is damn interesting while we're on the subject of cow farts.  Here are a couple snippets:

Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

I knew you would like that one.  It gets better:

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

Warning!  Cow farts are destroying the environment!  I have me an idea!  Let's punish the farmers out there with a "windfall cow population tax."  That's right, if a farmer is found to have "too many" cows on his/her farm, then he/she will be punished with the "windfall cow population tax" by taking away their profits. After all, we want to punish the oil companies, why not punish farmers, too?  What's the difference.

Don't think it will not happen?  Then you don't know liberals like I do.

H/T to Rants and Other Refinements

Print | posted @ Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:33 PM

Comments on this entry:

Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Jim - PRS at 5/11/2008 7:44 PM

So we should all become vegans and freeze our stindeens off. Oh, wait. Can't be vegans, because all the produce has gone into ethanol production.

Ack!
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/12/2008 6:49 AM

"Can't be vegans, because all the produce has gone into ethanol production."

This is why liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by AxsDeny at 5/12/2008 4:12 PM

FWIW, these studies are focused on factory farms (CAFOS) rather than Mom and Pop (small to medium sized) farms. In the U.S., four companies produce 81 percent of cows.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/12/2008 8:16 PM

So what you're saying is cow farts differ on the types of farms they are raised/live on?

Give me a break.

Cow farts are cow farts. There are no differences in farts.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by TheBad at 5/12/2008 9:39 PM

“these studies are focused on factory farms (CAFOS) rather than Mom and Pop (small to medium sized) farms”

What in the Scotch does that have to do with anything? ‘Oh, it’s OK because only those big evil companies are getting taxed’. I don’t give a rat’s fart who is getting unfairly taxed, my friend. The fact is that Global Warming (Hoax) is pure mythology and even if the global temperatures were on the rise (they are not), to suggest cow farts have any impact is purely and maniacally retarded.

Try and follow me on this: global temperatures are directly correlated to the output of the sun. I know, I know, it’s a really difficult concept for liberals to grasp – mostly because they haven’t figured a way to levy a tax on the sun’s output ... yet.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/13/2008 8:42 AM

It'll be interesting to see what response you get on your comment, TheBad .... if any at all.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by AxsDeny at 5/13/2008 10:31 AM

I added my comment as a clarification to the original post because it sounded as if farmers were being singled out. Hometown farmers aren't being singled out. A stance regarding the pros/cons of taxing the side effects of this industry is an exercise left up to the reader.

> Try and follow me on this: global temperatures are directly correlated to the output of the sun.

Empirical data indicates that characterizing our climate in this way is, at best, an oversimplification. I recommend reading a bit about how irradiance, insolation, and the solar constant along with particulate matter (cooling) and greenhouse gases (warming) work together in causing the shifts in our climate.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by TheBad at 5/13/2008 12:00 PM

“it sounded as if farmers were being singled out”

They’re taxing cow farts! Are you suggesting anyone other than farmers feel this pinch?

“Hometown farmers aren’t being singled out”

Excrement. While you might find it easy to justify should the notion be that only big and evil profiteers (also known as taxpayers, employers, and functionaries of society), it doesn’t make taxing cow farts any less ridiculous. Additionally, to suggest that the Mom and Pop farmers won’t also be taxed is either foolish or outright dense. A stance on that is an exercise left up to the reader.

“characterizing our climate in this way is, at best, an oversimplification”

Which do you prefer when it comes to a subject that is literally setting world policy: oversimplified but correct or completely off-the-hinges wrong? While our greenhouse gasses are on their “alarming” rise, our global temperatures are amongst the coldest that they have been in the entire 20th century. Want some reading material of your own? Check out Kenneth Tapping of the National Research Council. He oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, and science has recorded a measurable correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature. According to Tapping, the last time the sun was this inactive, the earth experienced the Little Ice Age. I’m sure he was just oversimplifying.

Global warming actually has already brought humanity to the verge of extinction - about 70,000 years ago. I’m pretty sure that was before SUVs, jumbo jets, carbon credits and … cow fart taxes.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by AxsDeny at 5/13/2008 3:19 PM

re: Kenneth Tapping

I looked into the report you mentioned. According to Mr. Tapping, his findings were misrepresented in the conservative press. I encourage you to investigate this claim in more depth.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/13/2008 3:28 PM

Deny...we're talking about TAXING COW FARTS. How is this not futile? Hell, it's downright ridiculous, man.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

You just watch, it won't be long before we're all required to wear an apparatus on our noses which records how much air we breathe so the government can tax us on it.

Think that sounds ludicrous? I hear you, but we're also discussing taxing cow farts. That being said, I wouldn't put it past the environmentalists. That's right, I said environmentalists, after all, they are the people responsible for this madness in the first place. They all won't be happy until mankind goes back to sticks, stones, and caves.

You can also take this to the bank:

When we eventually do move to the hydrogen powered car, you can be rest assured the environmentalists will complain about the cars themselves peeing out too much water.

Liberalism never ceases to amaze me.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Jake Krohn at 5/13/2008 4:20 PM

TheBad, here's Tapping's rebuttal, in case you can't find it. And I think that this is the piece that triggered the editorial that I believe you are referring to. Yes?

It seems Dr. Tapping's position is that a decrease in sunspot activity correlates with a decrease in global temperatures. But that doesn't mean that we've entered into a lull yet. And even if we did, mankind, with its industrial cow farms, cars, and other trappings of modern society, is forcing the climate into some pretty unnatural places.

He says:


If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades.


I'm with you guys in that I think a lot politicians will do anything they can to grab on to power and hold it. It's just that I think those making the grab are doing so in the name of global warming denial and are influenced by money, not concern for their constituents. That's not to say the other side has purely altruistic intentions either, but I like to think that things will turn out better in the end if we go in that direction.

Aren't you, as fellow citizens of the earth, just the slightest bit concerned about your quality of life if stuff does indeed hit the fan? Better to hedge our bets and try to live more responsibly, I say, than to continue this bluster and denial.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/13/2008 7:29 PM

"Aren't you, as fellow citizens of the earth, just the slightest bit concerned about your quality of life if stuff does indeed hit the fan? Better to hedge our bets and try to live more responsibly, I say, than to continue this bluster and denial."

Does this include taxing cow flatulence, Jake?

Hell, let's tax pig farts, and horse farts, too. What do you say?
Gravatar # Why not?
by Jake Krohn at 5/13/2008 7:57 PM


Hell, let's tax pig farts, and horse farts, too. What do you say?


As long as it includes the air that comes out of your mouth, I'm all for it! :)
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/13/2008 8:53 PM

Jake, in typical liberal fashion, when you can offer nothing else to a political discussion, you lash out with an attack and smile. What's next, will you offer the "peace sign?" Or, will you offer your own "peace sign" which involves your middle finger? I already know the answer.

So Jake, I guess it's perfectly acceptable for you to subscribe to the insane madness of taxing cow farts.

By the way Jake, will you give up even more of your freedoms in order to empower the government to determine what constitutes "living responsibly?"

I have an idea, Jake. Why don't you set the standard of "living responsible," how's that? From this point on, you must give up the automobile regardless if it's a hybrid or not. You must give up all products associated with oil and gas; from plastics to computer technology driven devices, to television, your iPod, and all & everything in between. You must give up electricity, no matter how it's generated because in one way, shape, or form, oil was used in the production of whatever devices used to generate the power. You must also give up living in a house/apartment, too. After all, houses and buildings kill trees.

When you step up and set that example, I'll follow suit.

Like the liberals who tell me to go to Iraq if I support the War in Iraq, how about you step up and prove your dedication?

Otherwise, shut your fucking mouth because you have no business telling others how to live their lives with your "living responsibly" environmentally conscious global warming/climate change bullshit; especially if you refuse to step up the plate and set the mother of all examples. That's right Jake, you can be like Al Gore, making millions pushing this global warming shit down the thirsty throats of intellectually lacking people while refusing to step up to the plate and giving up his luxuries.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Gawfer at 5/13/2008 9:11 PM

Here's an idea, let's shove a hose up the arse of every cow, and strap a vacuum containment unit on its back to capture all fugitive gas discharges.
Then, after collecting the gaseous fuel containment units, the farmer can utilize his Binford 2000 gas to liquid converter, producing a useful fuel to operate his tractors and other farm equipment.
Any surplus Fart Fuel can be marketed to the local town folk as 'Flex Fuel'.

Heck, my 2006 Yukon XL can burn up to 85% Flex Fuel, so I'm golden!
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/13/2008 9:16 PM

LOL @ Gawfer!!
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Andy at 5/14/2008 1:53 AM

I think you guys are seriously underestimating the SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN effects of Methane and other green house gases on the Earth's atmosphere.

Braden, I think you should read the book "When Life Nearly Died" by Michael Benton. No, Mr. Benton is not a Moonbat or Greenbat or Baseball Bat. He is a scientist. A Geologist.

There is Geological evidence that carbon emissions and emissions of other stored greenhouse gases cause rises in temperature on Earth.

250 some million years ago in the Permian period there were a whole bunch of methane burps and 94 percent of marine species died off.

Are "cow farts" the main issue here? Probably not. Is the methane tax a way to deal with the problem? I agree, its a little ridiculous. I have to agree with you there. You have some good points there.

But dude, is there enough methane gas trapped in the polar ice caps to raise the Earth's temperature 10.8 degrees if those ice caps keep melting like they are??? YES. Are the ice caps melting and breaking apart? YES. Is this cause for concern? I sure as heck think so. Pick up that book and tell me what YOU think.

And I think you are way out of line with your big spiel about liberals and environmentalists resorting to primitive ways of living. Cars, Air Conditioning, Electricity, etc are all luxarys that we CANNOT live without. No environmentalist or liberal will deny that. That's not the point that Jake or I or "Algore" or anyone else on here is trying to make, man. "Living responsibly" as Jake put it simply means being conscientious about our energy usage...and you know that's what he meant. If we put on a hooded sweatshirt and everyone in America kept their heaters at 68 degrees, we would not need foreign oil in less than 20 years. If every American shut off lights in rooms that they weren't in, we would save enough energy to power Pennsylvania. Could we turn to agricultural scientists with federal funding and ask them to create cattle feed that would reduce the amount of methane in the digestion process? Probably...oh, wait...that money is being spent on a war that is about as productive as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

I just think you are out of line with your sarcasm about us living without energy. You know thats not the issue here. The issue is our complete disregard for HOW MUCH energy we are using.

Anyway, I am tired and probably didn't make much sense, so I am ready for you to make me feel like an idiot now. Later.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Jake Krohn at 5/14/2008 7:00 AM

Chief, calm down. No need to go to extremes. I don't think we have to revert to primitive ways to earn the mantle of responsible living.

However, if you do want to get into a pissing match, I'll bite. First example: Last week I sold our family car. We now rely on the bus, walking, biking, and the occasional use of a car-sharing program to get around. I know it's just one very small step in your ambitious plan for me to lead by example, but I'm hoping you'll take notice, and, as you say, "follow suit."
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/14/2008 7:02 AM

I'm out of line? Bullshit, Andy.

Why not resort to the "primitive ways of living," Andy? After all, that's what Al Gore and his followers expect the rest us all to do.

You mean to tell me you cannot live without cars, air conditioning, electricity, etc.?

Last time I checked, our ancestors didn't have a problem living without any of those. They all survived just fine.

Are you and your environmentalist friends afraid to try living without those "luxuries?" You all tout "living responsibly," right? Coal is dirty, turbines kill birds, nuclear is too dangerous, oil is out, gas is out, solar is not efficient enough.

Ethanol caused food shortages which the environmental movement is "hush hush" about.

It's all not good enough to the environmentalists, Andy.

What's left, Andy? Sticks and flint?

Come on, set the standards, Andy. Show us all what living responsibly really means. If you can't Andy, then I direct my previous comment at Jake to you, too. Just wave "hello" to Al Gore when he passes you in his limo on the way to one of his talks on global warming he makes big money on for everyone one he gives.

Fascinating that you bring up those "luxuries" as those we cannot live without, though. Hell they are almost hypocritical in a way, especially given your blurb on global warming, and living responsibility, along with all the other carbon emissions bullshit you touted to me in past comments.

So that being said, that IS the issue here, contrary what you said.

By the way, isn't carbon dioxide plant food? Oh wait, we have to cut down all the trees and rain forests to grow corn so we can burn it via ethanol. I remember long ago being told for every Big Mac (or whatever) I ordered at McDonald's, so many acres of rain forest were torn down. Funny! Especially since we're doing that now to grow corn to burn it. Where are those environmentalists now?

Do you see the madness of environmental movement, Andy?

But that's all George Bush's fault, right Andy? That damn war.

Let's not blame Clinton, who vetoed a bill in 1995 to open ANWR to drilling. But his reasons? We wouldn't see the oil for 10-12 years.

We'd all be enjoying that oil today, huh Andy?
Nice going, Bill!
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/14/2008 7:06 AM

"However, if you do want to get into a pissing match, I'll bite. First example: Last week I sold our family car. We now rely on the bus, walking, biking, and the occasional use of a car-sharing program to get around. I know it's just one very small step in your ambitious plan for me to lead by example, but I'm hoping you'll take notice, and, as you say, "follow suit.""

I'll follow suit when you have the power company disconnect your electricity, when you give up your house/apartment, and when you give up all of your electronic luxuries you currently enjoy. If you don't, then you're a hypocrite and you're generating carbon footprints.

Don't give me your pissing match bullshit just yet. You're not done setting the standard.

It's fucked up dealing with absolutes, isn't it Jake?

How do you think I feel? It's how you liberals deal with shit every fucking day in terms of political debates.

Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Jake Krohn at 5/14/2008 10:12 AM


Don't give me your pissing match bullshit just yet. You're not done setting the standard.


I'm certainly not. But I do appreciate you letting me set a positive example for you and your ilk. I'll let you know how it turns out.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/14/2008 10:39 AM

Cool! I look forward to finding how it turns out for you and yours when you complete your quest of setting the standard. :)
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by TheBad at 5/14/2008 12:58 PM

So much nonsense, so little time.

With regards to Kenneth Tapping, I was not aware that he completely reversed his position. In light of the methods evironmentals use, I would not be surprised if his job was threatened, or someone suggested a war-crimes trial, or called him a “bastard” or “Holocaust denier”. While not reported by the media, it happens:

“I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.”

Nonetheless, the editorial that was linked which referenced Tapping’s findings had more scientists in the mix. You might have noticed:

“A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion (that the sun is what dictates our global temperatures).

‘The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100,’ according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that ‘try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures.’

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world’s power plants and factories, ‘there would not be much effect on temperatures.’

But if the sun shuts down, we’ve got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that’s hanging in the balance.”


Pardon me if I’m “oversimplifying” here, but this study sure follows what common sense tells us. However, if you don’t like that editorial, you could reference this:

“According to Dr. Douglass: ‘The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.’”

Yeah, I know – “on the Exxon payroll”, yadda-yadda. I’m sure his co-authors are too:

“One of his co-authors, Dr. John Christy, added: ‘Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater.

‘We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.’”


Effects overestimated? Ignoring scientific elements of the measurement? Wow, that’s sound science you fellers have going on there!
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by TheBad at 5/14/2008 1:07 PM

Cannot seem to get my comment to post. Must be too long. Posted it on my site here.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/14/2008 1:29 PM

Well said, TheBad! And so true it is, too!
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/14/2008 1:46 PM

You comment was flagged as spam by Akismet, I simply marked it for appoval via my blog's control panel.

;)

Sorry about that.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by TheBad at 5/14/2008 3:23 PM

(the continuation)

“And the third co-author, Dr. S. Fred Singer, said: ‘The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.

“‘Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly.’”


And there you have it – the reasoning behind all of this nonsense. It’s “very costly”. Who benefits? Obviously, by example of the original story we’re all discussing, the taxpayer does not. Obviously, by the notions of one contributor here, businesses do not. Now … doesn’t Algore have vested financial interest in Carbon Credit companies? Interesting…

Who else benefits? If given their way:

“The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday is expected to debate amendments to a bill proposed by Sens. Lieberman of Connecticut and Warner of Virginia that would create a ‘cap and trade’ system designed to cut total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. These systems require industries to pay fees when they emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouses gases above a set limit, with the money going to reward cleaner businesses.”

Yes, rewarding “cleaner businesses” which I’m sure make significant donations. Not to mention are already in the business of propagating this myth, as we are already spending $6.5 billion per year – tax dollars – on it. Anyone else that stands to benefit?

“Holdren (U.N. panel scientist), however, says even these measure will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.”

A global tax from the U.N. Terrific! Looks like this myth is going to financially benefit a whole variety of folks – not you or I – certainly not the environment!

“Better to hedge our bets and try to live more responsibly”

Nobody disagrees with that. While a rational notion, the problem is your definition of that responsibility. There is no scientific evidence that clearly indicates a correlation with CO2 and methane to global warming. Most of the scientists who claim so are running on seriously flawed science. Before I even get into the flaws of the science of Global Warming Hoax, we need to back this train up slightly. If we are to make accurate scientific correlations to temperature, shouldn’t we be measuring temperature properly?

Alas, I digress. Let’s make the rash assumptions that temperatures are rising and that they are being measured properly. Dr. Tim Ball notes the major flaw in Global Warming Hoax theory:

“A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.”

Get that? The theory was accepted before it was even tested. Again, I don’t think anyone endorses living irresponsibly. Simply put, I cannot fathom how one can consider questioning the seriously flawed nature of this hysteria as irresponsible.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by TheBad at 5/14/2008 3:25 PM

(the conclusion)

“Are the ice caps melting and breaking apart? YES.”

Wrongo. Although this quote is from the eee-vil Fox News, don’t discount it:

“Brazil’s MetSul Weather Center reports the ice and snow cover in the Arctic have recovered to within one percent of normal — even though the official start of winter is still more than a week away.

“And it says the southern polar ice cap actually has an additional 772,000 square miles of ice now — compared to a year ago.”


Or how about this from the National Post:

“Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.”

Sorry guys, but I’m not interested in buying the bridge you’re selling.

“‘We missed what was right in front of our eyes,’ says Prof. Russell (Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona and prominent climate modeler). It’s not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind’s effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.”

But, by all means let’s continue to tax such nonsense as cow farts.
Gravatar # Followup
by AxsDeny at 5/15/2008 1:59 PM

Re: Kenneth Tapping
He didn't reverse his position. He stated that his studies were misrepresented and he wasn't happy about that happening.

Re: Hoover Institute Study
The Hoover Institute has deep ties with the energy industry and neo-conservative lobbyists. An editorial study by them can hardly be considered scientific canon and can be, at best, considered questionable.

Re: Dr. Douglass, et al.
You're right. Oil industry payroll. Two minutes of googling shows the same for all of the authors of that study.

Re: Holdren
Agreed. A global tax on CO2 and CH4 is unrealistic.

Re: Faulty measuring of temperatures
From the site you posted, there are over 500 stations surveyed, with a few "odd sites." Watts (the maintainer of the site) states that half fall outside the guidelines. However, in the 10+ examples, the temperature shows an upward trend over the last 100 years. I assume the air conditioners, cars, and parking lots weren't to blame for those rises from 1880 through 1940.
I found no sponsorship from the energy industry for the maintainer of this site, but Watts does work for a conservative talk radio station. So my guess is that he didn't start his research from a standpoint of finding actual answers.

Re: Dr. Tim Ball
Again, two minutes of research shows him as an energy company shill. He's the head of the NRSP and used to head the "Friends of Science," which was an energy industry front.

Re: Brazil's MetSul Weather Center report
I couldn't do much research on this, as Metsul's website is in Portuguese. I did note that the person that wrote the article and got his name mentioned by Fox was Alexandre Aguiar. He's the director of communications for the station. I couldn't find any information on him other than the fact that he is a weatherman, not a climatology expert.

Re: Gilles Langis
That quote from Langis is frequently used by skeptics and I'm not surprised that the National Post would warp the original context. What doesn't get added is the continuation of his thought. I'll provide that here: "But it's too soon to say what impact this winter will have on the Arctic summer sea ice, which reached its lowest coverage ever recorded in the summer of 2007." Some research on polar ice packs will reveal more information about how thin and tenuous all the new ice accumulation has become.

Re: Joellen Russell
I honestly didn't find much about her. I'll concede that she did in fact offer that finding. I can't speak for or against its validity.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by AxsDeny at 5/15/2008 2:00 PM

Oops. I think I had an unclosed HTML tag in there.
Gravatar # Thoughts
by AxsDeny at 5/15/2008 2:01 PM

Re: Taxing "cow farts"
I agree. Taxing cow farts is silly. What really needs to happen is that the industry farmers need to (quite literally, if you'll pardon the pun and vulgarity) get their shit together. It's not the farts causing the massive methane output, it's the waste. CAFOs and the like produce an inordinate amount of fecal waste. Pig CAFOs are the biggest offender in this respect. Liquefying of manure is the standard way for agri-business to deal with waste. Once liquefied, swine feces produces hydrogen sulfide and many other nasty gases that are harmful to the population at large.

Two questions come of this;
1. "So what can we do about it?"
2. "So what?"

In response to question one, as a consumer the biggest and most immediate action to be taken would be to reduce or eliminate consumption of CAFO and agri-business meats. This has become easier recently because most meat packaging now tells you from where the meat originates. Buying meats from farms that use responsible farming techniques is a great place to start. Places like Polyface Farm are setting the standard for how responsible farming can be achieved. If you have a large freezer, this is a great option because you generally buy the meat in 40 pound increments. At least, that's what our local farm does.

Question two is a bit different. For some, it just seems responsible to minimize the impact while on earth. For others, the answer is that it doesn't matter. Very little can be said that will change the minds of folks that are set in one way of thinking. This is true for both sides of most arguments. I fear that such an impasse will occur in our discussions of these topics as long as science doesn't show 100% proof of concept.
Gravatar # Thoughts
by AxsDeny at 5/15/2008 2:03 PM

WTF. That code was valid. I think SubText is parsing HTML strangely after submission. Blah.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/15/2008 2:54 PM

Subtext hates MACS ;)

*ducks and runs*
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by AxsDeny at 5/15/2008 3:23 PM

LOL. I got a new hub the other day from our support people. It keeps shorting out and I think when I split the copy/paste my keyboard stopped responding. This stupid thing is driving me nuts. Doesn't anyone buy name brand electronics anymore?
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/15/2008 3:26 PM

Just do what we do around here....mark it "bad" with a sharpie marker, then put it up on the shelf
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/15/2008 3:30 PM

Seriously, that's what they do around here...

a hard drive starts clunking and clacking and is clearly nonfunctional....so what does one of my coworkers do? He marks it "bad" with a sharpie marker, and then puts it up on his shelf.

Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by TheBad at 5/15/2008 4:23 PM

Not-so-shocking response. All “on the payroll”. All “shills” for money-grubbing oil companies. Of course, proponents such as Nobel Laureate Algore have no financial stake whatsoever, right?

“There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.”

We can sit and play the Google game all you like, but the truth is that a great deal of money (non-tax dollars) being invested into alternative energy come from those oil companies who these scientists are supposedly “shilling” for. Your mind apparently will not be changed on the subject and you can Google all sorts of excuses to dismiss the obvious: the sun dictates our global climate and there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it.

“Scientists from NASA (are they on the payroll too?) say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.”

Amazing coincidence, eh? I wonder what could have caused such a similar temperature increase on two separate planets. What in our Solar System does that? Must be CO2. It couldn’t possibly be the measurable variation in the output of the sun correlating with the measurable increase in temperatures, could it?

This comment was sponsored by Exxon.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Jake Krohn at 5/15/2008 6:07 PM

Obviously the sun plays a part in dictating climate. It's what keeps us from being a cold, dark rock floating in space.

But the sun is a tremendously stable system. For whatever variations in output that it may have, it's what is happening here on Earth that has the bigger impact.

And seriously, do you just read headlines? The Mars story states:


The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.

In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature.


If you guys didn't have a partisan axe to grind, would you be so venomous in your refutation of the majority opinion of scientists?
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by Braden at 5/15/2008 8:11 PM

Jake,

People like you are so far indoctrinated into this global warming scam, nothing else will matter.

A prime example of this is other planetary bodies in the solar system are heating up as well.

So what will you blame that on this time? Bush? Halliburton? Cheney? Exxon? Dust? SUVs? Fossil Fuels?

When will you accept the fact that global warming is based entirely on junk science.

Plus, when will you grasp the reality that global warming (now convienently called "climate change") is nothing more than a scam by those with great political power/influence. Why? Because it is these people who want even more political power and more importantly, money.

How can I say that? Easy, let me ask you this: What reasons does Al Gore have so much money invested in carbon credit companies? Think about it, Jake. It's not hard to figure it all out, man.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

http://newsbusters.org/node/11149

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=217951

All that said, I can only say this to you, along with the rest of the global warming kool-aid swallower':

"Give me a freaking break!"




Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by TheBad at 5/16/2008 1:00 PM

I am specifically posting an article today that simply says:

I am a Shill for the Big Oil companies. I take money from Exxon.

That way, when they Google me, they’ll have all the “proof” they need.
Gravatar # re: Holy Crap!
by david drake at 5/16/2008 7:33 PM

Jake's comment: "But the sun is a tremendously stable system. "

Um - no, the sun is not "tremendously stable."

It's stable as a star - as stars go - but what happens on it couldn't be defined as stable: sunspots, solar flares and a lack of them - or an increase in those activities from the norm that we know through studying it could harly be classfied as "stable."

Your comment:

Title:
Name:
Email:
Website:
 
Italic Underline Blockquote Hyperlink
 
 
Please add 3 and 4 and type the answer here: