Being a Republican does not mean one is "anti-environment" or "pro foreign oil."

I truely hope that the conservative right considers becoming more environmentally friendly. It makes political, economic and every other kind of sense to act in a way that is sustainable. The Bush administration's history of denying global warming exists when literally tens of thousands of the world's top scientists unanimously agree it does and predict various negative consequences is either really funny or really scary.

To the first post,

You have misquoted, Deters. He never mentions those quotes in his article. I guess it is easier to refute your own quotes. But then, why even waste our time if you want to argue with yourself. Let me help you win your argument, BACK IT UP WITH POLICY!!

You can quote me on that.

As long as this kind of thing is prevalent in conservative schools of thought...we're all fucked.

The Global Warming Hoax

The Global Warming Hoax
by James K. Glassman (December 15, 2003)

Summary: The delegation met Wednesday with counterparts from Europe, and Inhofe and many of his colleagues were shocked at the Europeans' refusal even to consider scientific research that casts doubt on predictions of cataclysmic warming. "They just don't want to talk about the science," said Inhofe.

[www.CapitalismMagazine.com] MILAN, Italy -- On many of the walls here at the Feira Milano conference center, site of the giant United Nations meeting on climate change, Green activists have posted flamboyant posters showing a picture of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla), with a quotation from him: "Global warming is 'the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.'"

The idea being proffered by these sophisticates, of course, is that Inhofe is a typical American rube. Global warming a hoax! What a dope!

In fact, Inhofe is one of the best-informed Senators on the science and economics of global warming. And "global warming" -- as it's used by environmental extremists -- is indeed a hoax.

Yes, the Earth's surface has warmed a bit over the past century, but is that warming caused mainly by humans or by natural cycles? And can changes in human activity -- specifically reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions -- have anything more than a tiny effect on temperature? The answers to those questions, which are at the heart of the Kyoto Protocol and other attempts to force cuts in energy use, are simply unknown.

It is the claim of certainty that is a hoax. It's a dangerous one, too, since using global-warming theory as the basis for extreme policy mandates could plunge the world into a long-term recession or even a depression.

The quote on the poster comes from Inhofe's speech during debate over the McCain-Lieberman bill that would have curtailed greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States, a measure similar to the Kyoto Protocol, which President Bush rejected in 2001 as "fatally flawed" and which still lacks enough ratifying nations for implementation six years after it was signed. McCain-Lieberman was rejected, too -- in part because of Inhofe's strenuous efforts as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

One of the themes being promoted by Greens at this conference is that the American people want Kyoto-style measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions and that the close vote on McCain-Lieberman proves it. Wednesday's issue of ECO, the daily conference newsletter backed by WWF International, Greenpeace and other environmental groups, refers to "mounting anger at home" to President Bush's stance on climate change. "The American public is catching on to this charade," claims ECO.

But several times this week, Inhofe has patiently explained the real arithmetic behind the Senate vote. First, it was 16 votes short of the 60 effectively needed for passage under Senate rules. Second, it was riddled with concessions to win votes. Without the amendments, Inhofe figures only 32 Senators would have backed it. Finally, the bill was sold under a claim that it would cost only $20 per household per year. A study commissioned by TechCentralStation and performed by Charles River Associates, the respected economic research firm, found that the costs would be at least 17 times that much.

Inhofe heads a congressional delegation of eight Republicans in Milan. The others are Sens. Larry Craig (Idaho), Craig Thomas (Wyo.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Reps. Chris Cannon (Utah), Fred Upton (Mich.), Chris Shays (Conn.) and Jim Greenwood (Pa). There are no Democratic members of Congress here but plenty of Democratic staffers.

I sat down with Inhofe at breakfast at his hotel in Milan Thursday morning. Considering the fact that nothing much has been happening at COP-9, the ninth United Nations conference of the parties to the 1992 Rio agreement on the environment, I started by asking why he was here.

"I'm here," he said, "to show that we are not going to ratify Kyoto."

That's Inhofe at his finest. Straight talk. No nonsense.

Unlike some other members of Congress, who accept the scientific basis for Kyoto but say that the treaty costs too much and exempts developing countries, Inhofe disputes the science. He knows the studies, and he recognizes that the tide has turned in the past few years.

"Virtually all of the research since 1999 has been refuting [the theory of human-caused global warming]. It is ludicrous that Kyoto can be as damaging economically as it is when there is no science to justify it."

New research, for example, has challenged Michael Mann's "hockey-stick" formula, which asserts that temperatures have risen sharply, in an unprecedented fashion. In fact, warming was worse centuries ago, before industrialization and automobiles.

The delegation met Wednesday with counterparts from Europe, and Inhofe and many of his colleagues were shocked at the Europeans' refusal even to consider scientific research that casts doubt on predictions of cataclysmic warming. "They just don't want to talk about the science," said Inhofe. "They don't want to listen. They were Zombies" -- unlike "real people in the U.S." Those Americans, said Inhofe, "we are turning around" with the recent research.

Some members of the delegation have been as forceful as Inhofe on the subject of climate-change science. For example, in 1998, with Bill Clinton in the White House, Sen. Larry Craig said, "As more and more American scientists review the available data on global warming, it is becoming increasingly clear that the vast majority believe the commitments for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions made by the administration in the Kyoto Protocol are an unnecessary response to an exaggerated threat the vice president himself [i.e., Al Gore] is caught up in making."

The talk of the conference has been Russia. Will the Russians ratify Kyoto? The treaty requires the votes of nations producing 55 percent of all emissions from developed countries. Currently, the tally is 44 percent, so the Russians, with 17 percent, hold the key.

Inhofe says that some Russians see negotiations on ratification "as a way to make some money. They want to see how big the bribe will be." But, in the end, he thinks the Russians will reject Kyoto, for reasons of science and economics, just as Bush rejected it as shortly after his inauguration.

"I'm proud of Putin for having the courage to look at the science," said Inhofe, referring to the Russian president. "In this environment, it takes courage."

Inhofe also agrees with the assessment that this has been a particularly depressing conference for the Greens. The plenary sessions are only about half-full, and "there was no enthusiasm in the room."

Meanwhile, Inhofe points out, the United States is shelling out $4.7 million, footing the bill for about one-fourth of the cost of the U.N.'s extravaganza. But the price may be worthwhile, if only because Inhofe is getting his message out. He's teaching the value of straight talking to the Europeans and the Green NGO officials who, for a long time now, have assumed they can set the world's agenda. This year, with Kyoto on its deathbed, they're learning otherwise. It's delightful to see.

Submitted by Brian J aka Seadogbytes

Yay for conservative conspiracy theorists! Talk to me after you learn some geology buddy. And I'm glad Deters brought up the Support Our Troops stickers. How funny is it to see one of those yellow ribbons on an SUV!

Hey as long as we don't care about california I guess there's no reason to worry about global warming. From now on why don't you get your news from other places besides republican memos.

Being a Republican does not mean one is "anti-environment" or "pro foreign oil."

Actually, even though Deters didn't say that, being republican DOES mean that assuming you supported Bush at least.

Since Bush we have: lower air pollution regulations, lower mercury regulations, lower nuclear regulations, lower power plant regulations - there is no way to construe more pollution any other way than anti-environment.

As for pro foregin oil. Well, we are fighting a war primarily for strategic control of the world's oil. So it seems that if the republicans want it enough to invade another country, that's pretty "pro".

Those who deny global warming exists need to get their heads out of the sand. My next car will definitely be a hybrid!

Why no mention of nuclear power, the only realistic solution?

Even Stewart Brand realizes the truth of this. Brand concludes the only realistic way to stave off global warming is to increase production efficiency and decarbonize energy production--to go nuclear.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/05/issue/feature_earth.asp

There is growing evidence that oil is far more plentiful than we have been led to believe.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040608-092733-4642r.htm

"Americans have been living in a fantasyland of subsidized gas. For the past half-century we have been paying for gas that is not ruled by the market. Our gas should reflect its true per gallon value, which most experts agree is accurately around $5 a gallon and currently could truly be as high as $6.05 a gallon."

The largest cost component is taxes. Europe has very high taxes on gas. We should add a $2 or $3/gallon tax and use the money to develop pebble bed nuclear power plants.

I don't think it is laughable to ask tough questions about the theories of global warming. After all, it was only 30 years ago that all the top scientists were screaming about global cooling.

Hmmm...yes...the Washington Times...home of the Moonies...does anyone here know who the owner of the Washington Times is? That he believes in exterminating all non-Christians and gays on the planet in gulag style concentration camps? That he forces his own cult-like religion on his employees and politicians alike?

http://www.iapprovethismessiah.com/

Check here to see how CRAZY the Washington Times (and completely discredited by serious journalists) is.

Yeah, it's much easier to believe that plants and animals were tranformed into oil?

"What happened?"

"Well, first the dinosaurs came. Then an asteroid hit and they died and turned into oil. Then the Saudi's came in their big Mercedes Benzes and bought it all up!"

--Johnny from "Airplane"

I don't know why all you guys can't chill out about this. Oil prices still havent reached the prices they were in the 70s (in todays dollars) and "scientists and scholars" have been saying we're running out of oil for 30 years.

But you're all liberals, so you have no faith in the market. Economically speaking, oil is the best and most efficent way to transport ourselves and our goods. Now realize you have to look at all the cost/benefits, not just dollar figures, like convience and time. The market will always use the cheapest option and maximize efficiency. If there actually was a viable alternative to todays car, we'd all be using it.

The price of oil will argue for itself. And when it does (*maybe* in our lifetime) then a better alternative will emerge. Or a better, cheaper alternative will undercut oil sooner. Who knows, who cares? It could be hydrogen, coal, nuclear, or porkbellies. Whatever it is, it will be the cheapest because the market demands it.

The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone.

The bronze age din't end because we ran out of bronze.

The iron age din't end because we ran out of iron.

The steam age din't end because we ran out of steam.

The oil age won't end because we run out of oil.

(Don't really know what to say about the Information Age - LOL)

No one believes that the Big 3 (or about to be two if the economic projection on GM are right) will change because the market wants them to. Look how long it took for them to put in fucking seatbelts, why would they completely revamp their fleet just because the fuel they run on is running out?

Only pie in the sky libertarians actually believe the market works that well. Are we building trains, buses or fuel effecient cars with the impending oil crisis coming? No. And what the fuck about China? They are going to use more oil than us in the next ten years, and never stop using less, and those numbers were never factored into world consumption thirty years ago.

Long story short, we are fucked, and anyone who pretends we are not is an ostrich with their head up their own butt.

WTF about China? China plans a crash develpoment of pebble bed nuclear power to replace oil and coal with electricity and hyprogen.

Combine that with people willing to work 10 hours per day, six days per week and we can look forward to bowing down to our new Chinese owners before the century is out. This is what Buffett is talking about when he warns that we are about to become a nation of sharecroppers.

The biggest joke is that Europe looks down on the US as a nation of crazy workaholics that dosen't even get the month of August as a vacation. France is about to go out on strike over raising the work week from 35 hours - LOL.

I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords!!

Are the Chinese big on Diversity?

"The steam age din't end because we ran out of steam.

The oil age won't end because we run out of oil."

Notice in all those cases, a new more EFFICENT way came about? Oil so far is the most efficient. Nuclear is more efficient but has its drawbacks. (Somehow, waste must be transported.. can be stolen then, plant could be taken over, electronics rewired to initiate meltdown, etc..) Therefore, for now.. Oil is king..

While the climate might be getting warmer.. the climate works in micro and macro cycles, the general public is not convinced that this is NOT part of a cycle because.. IT COULD BE.. its not really provable..

Plus, if shit goes down, the earth balances itself out.. Ecology has equilibrium.. If one species dies, the food cycle does not collapse, it adapts.. same with climate, if the climate goes up, life will adapt.. (Thermophiles can live in excess of 130F :) )

The Lexus RX 300h is a hybrid SUV, that gets better gas mileage than its RX 300 sister, is only an inch taller and longer, is more powerful than the gas only RX 300 (helps convince a lot of people who don't want a thing that accelerates like a lawn mower). If you use this type of economic ingenuity, you'll more like convince the general public instead of "Do it.. For us Activists and For the Enviroment.. " type whining

Are we building trains, buses or fuel effecient cars with the impending oil crisis coming? No.

Except for the the "pre eminent" strike on Iraq, most people don't act nor care to act until a crisis actually occurs. Look at terrorists.. nothing was done with the little trickles of terrorists attacks until 9/11..

Don't fool yourself that you can motivate people to act before a crisis occurs.. but once one does, everyone will adapt and continue on.. Look at 9/11.. We adapt.. and move on with our lives.. Pretty simple.. Don't stress so much!

"The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone.

The bronze age din't end because we ran out of bronze.

The iron age din't end because we ran out of iron.

The steam age din't end because we ran out of steam.

The oil age won't end because we run out of oil."

WRONG!!!

We still have stone.

We still have bronze.

We still have iron.

We still have steam.

We won't have oil.

"Only pie in the sky libertarians actually believe the market works that well. Are we building trains, buses or fuel effecient cars with the impending oil crisis coming?"

Well first, there is no "impending oil crisis". Only the same people saying for decades that its coming and you believe that.

If trains, buses or fuel effecient cars made sense to the consumer economically, they would use them. Do a cost/benefit analysis. OK, it may be cheaper for a wealthy white collar worker to take the bus instead of drive his BMW when comparing bus fares to gas costs, but that is not all there is to his decision. His commute may take him 1 hour on the bus, but 20mins in his car. He may often have run errands after work. He may not like sitting on a crowded bus, he places value on the status symbol of his BMW, etc. Those are all costs and benefits to him.

So why aren't we building more mass transit? Well we are, just not in Madison, because it would be ridiculously inefficent. Ever hear of the subway in New York, or the L in Chicago? The market demands it in those places, because its a better way to get around. Those transit systems weren't built because of environmental concerns, they were built because they were a better way of commuting.

"No one believes that the Big 3 (or about to be two if the economic projection on GM are right) will change because the market wants them to. Look how long it took for them to put in fucking seatbelts, why would they completely revamp their fleet just because the fuel they run on is running out?"

I agree American car manufactuers are screwed up and always behind the curve. I don't think this has anything to do with them not wanting to revamp their cars. They just arent dynamic companies, and they ignore trends and change (like many huge companies that have faded in the last 50years), its how the Japanese have completely dominated the compact and sedan market. Whether its Toyota or Ford, when a viable lower cost alternative fuel vehicals are developed, they'll be selling them because there is a profit to be made.

"And what the fuck about China? They are going to use more oil than us in the next ten years, and never stop using less, and those numbers were never factored into world consumption thirty years ago."

Well you disproved your own argument. If theres no oil left, then why would China be using it all and "never stop using less?" Are you the only person privy to this oil supply information? You'd think the evil Chinese would know this, and THEY would keep using their bicycles while the US economy implodes under the demand for oil to sustain it. Why would they want to become even more dependent on oil than the US is?

You sound upset. Don't worry, in 20 years we will all still be driving gas driven cars and people like you will still be freaking out about how we're all "fucked."

"Plus, if shit goes down, the earth balances itself out.. Ecology has equilibrium.. If one species dies, the food cycle does not collapse, it adapts.. same with climate, if the climate goes up, life will adapt.. (Thermophiles can live in excess of 130F :) )"

Translation: "Yay! People are going to die! Let's celebrate!"

"We still have stone.

We still have bronze.

We still have iron.

We still have steam.

We won't have oil."

You missed the point. The point is we developed technologically in those times because the market gave better alternatives. At some point oil will become prohibitally expensive, or it will stay affordable but an even cheaper alternative will be developed. This is what has happened for nearly every products/service in history.

I'll be laughing when all of the pro-oil, "we're never going to run out", anti-environment, SUV gas guzzling fools are paying for gas with half of their incomes while the rest of us are enjoying the economic benefits of fuel efficient hybrid vehicles or alternative fuel sources. I have better things to spend my money on than gasoline, thanks...

If we are still using oil as the fuel of choice in 20 years, I for one will be really disappointed.

Devil take your market. You can't honestly believe that just because something is marketable and selling well, this is a justification for its longterm use. What about fast food? It's cheap, it's usually pretty tasty, it's definitely marketable and sells well, but it also has a pretty bad effect on everyone who eats it. Will you eat it night and day for the next 20 years?

You can do a cost/benefit analysis on oil, but don't forget to account for pollution, corruption, political reliance on the Middle East, it's nonrenewable, etc. If you take those into account, alternative energy looks pretty swell. I'm no actuary, but if I had to spitshot this, I'm pretty sure alternative fuels are a stronger choice in the future. So let's get a head start.

"I have better things to spend my money on than gasoline"

Better plan on being in that hybrid a long time if actually expect to amotize the extra cost.

Well, it likes we'll have to invade Canada after all!

***

How about oil from tar sands (or "oil sands") from Canada? It is already at 1Mb/d, not a small amount. The reserves there are greater than Saudi Arabia's, but unquestionably are only practical at high price levels, i.e. $40, $50, or more per barrel.

Oil sands production is set to increase to 3 million barrels a day from 1 million over the next 15 years, with the United States likely the primary buyer. Oil sands -- a doughy mix of hydrocarbons, sands and clay -- underlie 50,000 square miles of Alberta. With at least 175 billion barrels of recoverable petroleum, it is quite likely the world's largest oil deposit. Strip-mined or heated by steam and extracted by wells, oil sands yield an oil component called bitumen that can be made into synthetic petroleum. The oil sands in Alberta yielded $10 billion in taxes and royalties to the provincial government last year, a figure certain to rise.

Extra cost? Hybrids cost like $25,000, a rather high end for a small car, but a fuckload less then your average SUV. SUV hybrids are a great start, no doubt, but it's about changing attitudes, not just building better cars.

Now realize you have to look at all the cost/benefits, not just dollar figures, like convience and time.

-> Typical. What about the fact that oil pollutes the hell out of the environment? That doesn't factor into the "market" economics.

The market will always use the cheapest option and maximize efficiency.

-Actually this is wrong. Markets left unregulated tend toward monopolies which are the least efficent form of distribution for most resources.

If there actually was a viable alternative to todays car, we'd all be using it.

Bikes are viable for most people that commute less than 20 miles-iow most of Madison- yet students still buzz around on scooters when they are going 3 blocks and people drive their cars across town.

The Market doesn't work without regulation. It never has and never will.

"The market will always use the cheapest option and maximize efficiency."

Needs to have some limits, after all it's cheap and efficient to shit in the street.

"I'll be laughing when all of the pro-oil, "we're never going to run out", anti-environment, SUV gas guzzling fools are paying for gas with half of their incomes"

The problem with this statement is .. that most of the people don't care about oil, enviroment, SUVs.. etc.. They just care whats the cheapest resource.. Efficiency is king.. Once OIL starts getting SCARCE.. it's price will start rising slowly.. (Not in a CRISIS).. and slowly people will switch to a cheaper investment.. At this moment, people have started to switch to hybrids.. which means less consumption.. so prices will drop or level off for oil over some time.. but after time.. they'll go up again as supply slowly goes down.. so prices go up a lil more.. so more hybrid buyers join in.. until oil is TOO expensive for anyone..

To suggest that it'll just suddenly be tapped out over night is absurd and shows no intelligence..

"Needs to have some limits, after all it's cheap and efficient to shit in the street."

No because clean-up costs more than just automatically flushing it towards a centralized processing facility.

"No because clean-up costs more than just automatically flushing it towards a centralized processing facility."

And why do we have to clean it up?