The "Train to Nowhere" will dwarf the cost of the "Bridge to Nowhere".
In the last decade, the symbol for profligate federal spending was the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" -- a huge proposed span that would link the town of Ketchikan, Alaska, population 7,500, to an airport on Gravina Island. Powerful Alaska Republican lawmakers tried to stick American taxpayers with a huge chunk of the tab for this dubious project.
This decade, the symbol for federal pork-barrel excess may well be Trains to Nowhere -- and if Democrats get their way, those boondoggles could span the country. At least in blue states.
Last month, voters in Wisconsin and Ohio elected Republican governors. Rather than just talking about spending less, both Ohio's John Kasich and Wisconsin's Scott Walker had pledged, if elected, to reject funds earmarked for high-speed rail projects in the 2009 Obama stimulus package. Kasich said he would say no to $385 million for a train connecting Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. Walker said he would reject $810 million for a train from Madison to Milwaukee.
Both Kasich and Walker understood: Just because Washington is throwing around money, that doesn't mean taxpayers get a free ride.
There is no guarantee that if you build high-speed rail, passengers will come. As Randal O'Toole of the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute noted, "The Ohio and Wisconsin projects aren't even worthy of being called high-speed rail." The average speed for the Ohio's "3C" line is projected at 38.5 miles per hour; the speed for the Wisconsin line would average 59 mph. In short, these "high-speed" trains wouldn't even go faster than cars.
With round-trip Madison-Milwaukee fares projected to range from $44 to $66, it could be cheaper for one person to drive and certainly cheaper for two. And you can always take the bus.
Walker argued that Wisconsin, facing a $2.5 billion budget deficit next year, doesn't need to be saddled with the $7.5 million annual cost to operate the train.
Train enthusiasts argued that Walker had it all wrong. You don't say no to a free car just because you have to pay for gas and other operating costs.
But Wisconsin voters did not agree. The St. Norbert College Survey Center poll found that 55 percent of Wisconsin voters opposed taking the ostensibly free rail money.
After they were elected, Walker and Kasich asked the Obama administration to allow them to spend that $1.2 billion rail money on other projects in their states. Walker wanted to fix his state's bridges and highways. Kasich asked that, if the U.S. Department of Transportation refused the request, Ohio's $385 million go to the U.S. Treasury to reduce the federal deficit.
Instead, on Dec. 9, before either governor-elect assumed office, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that his department would redirect the $1.2 billion that would have gone to Wisconsin and Ohio to 14 other states. As the Weekly Standard's Stephen F. Hayes wrote, LaHood had sent the message "if you don't want to waste our money, we'll find someone who will."
California alone stands to gain up to $624 million of the forfeited stimulus funds -- on top of the more than $4.3 billion already earmarked for the planned high-speed rail project that would link San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim and eventually reach Sacramento and San Diego. California voters passed a $10 billion bond measure in 2008 to help fund the $43 billion project.
In November, the California High-Speed Rail Authority voted to approve the first segment of the project. It will start in the middle of nowhere (Borden) and go to nowhere (Corcoran)***. State Sen. Alan Lowenthal, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, said he fears the segment could turn into an "orphan" line, unusable by bullet trains.
Noting that an Obama official had announced that California would get an extra $715 million in the San Joaquin Valley congressional district of Democrat Jim Costa, just before Costa narrowly won re-election, Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters quickly dubbed the segment the "train to nowhere."
In July, LaHood had proclaimed the Madison-Milwaukee project as unstoppable. "High-speed rail is coming to Wisconsin. There's no stopping it."
Walker wrote a letter to President Obama in which he protested, "It's outrageous for Secretary LaHood to suggest that your administration can force Wisconsin to continue building a train it doesn't want and cannot afford."
LaHood's Dec. 9 power play makes it official. It doesn't matter what voters want or whether they think their state can afford to take free federal money. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, federal transportation dollars are the Democrats' loose change.
6,000 passengers in SEVEN-HOUR queue stretching 1.2 miles as snow and ice cripples Eurostar
With England in the icy grip of the coldest December for a century, the temperature is set to drop to a record low, with more snow forecast in the coming days.
Last night, the temperature in Chesham, Buckinghamshire, fell to -19.6C, and experts believe a combination of snow-covered ground, clear skies and the shortest day of the year could produce a sub -26C thermometer reading tomorrow.
The previous record low of -26.1C, set in Shropshire in January 1982, could be eclipsed at an inland area that does not benefit from the warming effect of the sea.
Don't depend on mass transit would be the story in the EU this Christmas.
"According to Nasa's datasets, the world has just experienced the warmest January to November period since the global record began, 131 years ago; 2010 looks likely to be either the hottest or the equal hottest year. This November was the warmest on record."
"According to Nasa's datasets, the world has just experienced the warmest January to November period since the global record began, 131 years ago;
It amazes me the lengths an agency will go to when they are threatened with extinction. How many people would not say what the boss wants them to say when their job is on the line? NASA is on the Obama chopping block.
When it gets warm enough in Greenland to raise cattle and grow crops as the Vikings did in the Medieval warming period I will believe their tall tales. When NASA replaces the equipment pulled from the Northern tier that would refute their cherry picked data, it will be a start to returning their credibility.
There's a mini ice age coming, says man who beats weather experts
Why did the Met Office forecast a "mild winter"?
Do you remember? They said it would be mild and damp, and between one degree and one and a half degrees warmer than average. Well, I am now 46 and that means I have seen more winters than most people on this planet, and I can tell you that this one is a corker.
Never mind the record low attained in Northern Ireland this weekend. I can't remember a time when so much snow has lain so thickly on the ground, and we haven't even reached Christmas. And this is the third tough winter in a row. Is it really true that no one saw this coming?
Actually, they did. Allow me to introduce readers to Piers Corbyn, meteorologist and brother of my old chum, bearded leftie MP Jeremy. Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.
Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its "mild winter" schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year's mythical "barbecue summer", and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.
He seems to get it right about 85 per cent of the time and serious business people - notably in farming - are starting to invest in his forecasts. In the eyes of many punters, he puts the taxpayer-funded Met Office to shame. How on earth does he do it? He studies the Sun.
Now he wants to do the same for the whole USA. Go Ahnold!!!
Schwarzenegger, who counts legislation combating global warming as one of his signature achievements in office, suggested he might be interested in a post dealing with energy or the environment.
"I'm a big believer in environmental issues," Schwarzenegger said, who added that he wanted a post where he could use his "celebrity power knowledge and experience" to impact public policy. "I've traveled the world. I'm very familiar with the world."
It's not a far-fetched idea. Obama has often mentioned Schwarzenegger as someone he's like to have in the Cabinet, citing his work on climate change. For months, there have been rumors in Washington that the former action star might join the administration as a climate change czar or as an adviser on energy and the environment. The White House has repeatedly declined to comment on personnel issues.
Big Ahnold in a position as Climate Guru ? That is soooo depressing - even from over here in frozen Britain. I do agree he should be in the Cabinet though. Let's just make sure it has no connections to the outside world, no windows and a very stout lock on the only door..........and the key is lost.
The man is a fool and that juist makes him even more attractive to other fools, especially those in politics.
I'll tell you what is soooo depressing - an article today, where I saw that 1 in 7 in the U.S. is receiving federal Food Stamp aid.
The implications of that as related to this topic are that many people whether unemployed, underemployed, or just plain ol' employed are struggling to survive And it sounds like that percentage of our population is growing. So that does not bode well with utopian thoughts of people making more expensive, but so-called environmentally friendly choices.
When you're cold and hungry, you'll make whatever choice is necessary.
I hope you folks in the U.K. realize by now, that all this GW (haha) isn't going to result in palm trees along the English Channel. As usual, you'll get the story that it "Is warming elsewhere, and it's hotter than ever". But funny how there are few cases where someone can point out where it is warmer. The cold air we've been getting has been coming from the Arctic; it sure seems to be plenty cold there, despite all this supposed news of the Arctic melting away.
Tell your government to invest in snowplows, salt, deicer, and give tax-credits for people to buy snowtires, instead of carbon credits. Because GW is always happening somewhere else, AFAIK.
Hardy palms live down to 5°F. The outdoor one we had in Boise didn't really thrive though, even though we covered it with straw every winter. If it can stick it out another decade, who knows. But they're over the pond too.
Another report on that study I linked the other day:
Gotta remember that one. When it is 100 degrees in Arizona next summer and larsb is screaming about GW I will just tell him no...just a harbinger of the coming ice age.
Those clowns should be comedy writers. Still laughing !! :P
German Meteorologist: Little Ice Age And Expanding Arctic Ice Coming
If German meteorologist Thomas Globig's prediction is on the money, forget global warming, get ready for another ice age.
The cold now sweeping over Europe and other parts of the globe are due to natural cycles, says . He points out that the first 2 weeks of December in Britain have been the coldest since the last little ice age 350 years ago, and claims some climate models have criminally under-estimated solar influence on climate and that we ought to expect colder winters, and expanding Arctic ice in the years ahead.
"Some climate forecasts will have to be thrown in the dustbin."
Note that Globig says the change is due to completely natural cycles. Interestingly, there's lots of data to support global cooling.
Meanwhile, the clueless climate change alarmists continue with their gibberish about global warming due to human emissions of CO2, and have now even expanding their man-made claims to include non-CO2 pollutants.
I thought you already sold your place in Idaho. Not ready to move out of MI are you?
We are having an unusually early rainfall season in So CA. These kind of rains are generally in the Spring. I just passed 3.8 inches on my patio since Sunday when it started to rain. We are right at 8 inches since July 1st. Normal is 3.67" for that time period. CA has 130% of its needed snowpack for our water supply. The ski resorts near Tahoe had 10 feet by Thanksgiving and the report last night was they are over 13 feet so far this season. Should fill our reservoirs this Spring. If it is GW, I say bring it on.
Yeah, we turned around and bought an old house here. Penciled out cheaper than renting even if we do bug out in three or four years. I going to be comparing heating costs with Kernick pretty soon (using natural gas, and I'm not ready to start splitting wood).
January to November, currently places the year as the seventh warmest on records dating back to 1850.
back to 1850 they had records?
The combined global land and ocean surface average temperature for March 2009 was the 10th warmest since records began in 1880
There was a report last week out of the UK that claimed it was the coldest whatever since records dating back to 1659. These so called high paid government scientists play loose and easy with the data as we all know now. So why would you believe anything they say? Last I read the ocean temps have remained flat since they deployed the new deep water system. NASA still puts out Hansen data sets. We all know he is a government shill.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the Muller interview:
question What’s your take on NASA climate scientist James Hansen? answer Hansen I’ve known for many years. He’s a very good climate scientist, but he’s decided to do the politics. I feel that he’s doing some cherry-picking of his own [when it comes to the science]. At that point, he’s not really being a scientist. At that point, you’re being a lawyer. He’s being an effective advocate for his side, but in the process of doing that he’s no longer a neutral party and he’s no longer giving both sides of the issues.
It is a matter of who you trust to tell the truth. I will never trust a person that is paid to push an agenda.
If the data they believe to be correct is indeed correct, who caused the 25 degree F rise in temperatures millions of years ago? They say possibly volcanoes. We have 100s if not thousands of active volcanoes currently spewing GHG into the atmosphere. Why do the AGW scientists ignore that source? As well as the only source of heat the Sun?
All the fuss over a blessing of warmer weather. I am with Kernick. Bring on the warmth. I would love the average here to be 10 degrees warmer year round. I prefer the tropics to the Arctic. I am loving this rain as well. It is money in the bank. Just dumped my rain gauge that was full at 5.25". And it is still coming down nicely. Maybe our reservoirs, water table and wells will get back to a good level. No snow this time, too warm. :-)
The best article I've read on CO2 came from Road&Track a couple of years ago. And in the article they stated how many billions of tons of CO2 are emitted by nature and how much is absorbed by nature. Over 95% of CO2 emitted was natural. Now scientists argument was that nature could absorb that much usually. But man emitting their few % were causing that extra few % to buildup. So if nature put out 700B tons and man put out 30B tons, nature only could absorb 700B tons. So the simplified story was even though mankind's contribution was small, it was excess.
On another note I was watching The Universe the other night on History Channel and the show was about the Sun. The Sun currently is about 1/2 way thru its life, and as it uses up its hydrogen fuel the Sun is slowly growing. The Sun will continue to grow until it covers the orbit of Mercury and Venus, and possibly reach to earth's present orbit. Even if it doesn't reach our orbit the Earth's oceans will be boiled-away. (There is a theory that as the Sun grows, with its core shrinking, that this may save the Earth by pushing our orbit out). Anyway the point is the Sun and any other part of nature aren't static. Change is normal. The Sun is going to grow, and become a Red Giant.
The Sun was, is. and will be The main factor of climate on the Earth. Just the sunlight that comes in our very, very small direction (93 million miles away), is more in 1 day that mankind's energy usage for the year.
Halfway...the sun isn't going to be done in 2012 is it? I think I read that someone reinterpreted the Mayan calendar and moved the end of time date back to 2013.
Back to Claires' question, 2nd highest since 1891 (Economic Times India). And along the same lines, NASA and NOAA don't agree (but they're close - climatecentral.org).
As the political debate drags on, the mute gray boxes atop Mauna Loa keep spitting out their numbers, providing a reality check: not only is the carbon dioxide level rising relentlessly, but the pace of that rise is accelerating over time.
I thought the latest data proved that CO2 levels rise following a rise in temperatures. Mauna Loa is also very close to a lot of active volcanic eruptions. I would think that would add a lot of CO2. Making that device somewhat useless. Of course they will spread the data as long as the Feds keep sending them money. It is still all about the money.
Yes, I find out Mauna Loa to be a peculiar location too, given that it is an active volcano, and it's neighbor Kilaueau puts out vog each and every day. I don't know how much of the escaping gases is CO2 vs. SO2 and other gases.
The other variable of putting a climate monitoring station in a seismically active area with deep ocean waters, is that volcanic vents on the ocean floor are not well charted. Probably there are more vents of unknown location then known. So the station on Mauna Loa could be picking up increased venting/activity of these unknown ocean-floor vents.
Steve - I'm planning on spending all my $ by the 2012 date. If that's wrong, I'll just live on credit for a year until Armageddon in 2013.
I'm planning on spending all my $ by the 2012 date. If that's wrong, I'll just live on credit for a year until Armageddon in 2013.
You can join the countdown party in France.
By NewsCore - Armageddon-fearing pilgrims were flocking to a village deep in the southern French hills after a countdown was started to the end of the world, which stood Thursday at a mere 729 days to go.
Followers of the Mayan calendar believe the mountain in the Corbieres hills overlooking the village of Bugarach, east of the Pyrenees, was endorsed by aliens as a safe place to survive the demise of civilization.
The countdown began Tuesday, exactly two years until Dec. 21, 2012 -- the movement's assigned Judgment Day.
The AGW Cult ain't got nothing on this bunch. Wonder if Al Gore is involved in this scam also.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), however, plans to move full speed ahead with new regulations on January 2 that will likely cost many Americans their jobs before the New Year’s Eve party hats have even been put away.
In a nutshell, the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule will treat emissions from renewable biomass energy the same as emissions from the use of fossil fuels, despite the fact that both policymakers and scientists have long considered biomass emissions to be carbon-neutral due to the life cycle of the forests from which biomass is produced.
This new rule and regulatory uncertainty could spell the end of the biomass energy industry by removing the carbon-neutral status of biomass and, consequently, the biggest incentive to continue investing in it. Recent estimates have shown that biomass generated from forest byproducts could supply as much as 15 percent of the nation’s renewable energy by 2021, yet this will likely never be realized if biomass producers are forced to comply with arbitrary, unfair and unnecessary regulations like those in the Tailoring Rule.
In addition to harming domestic renewable energy development and the economy, the EPA commits a crime that Mr. Scrooge would never commit: wasting money. In President Obama's “stimulus” program alone, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy have collectively spent more than $100 million of taxpayer money to promote biomass power production.
Even Representative Collin Peterson (D-MN), the outgoing Chair of the House Agriculture, said before the election, “[The EPA is] screwing things up. They’re raising costs for people, they’re raising the price of food, and I don’t think they’re accomplishing anything.”
Merry Christmas from the Environmental Protection Agency, eh?? So much for the "recovery". It'll be interesting how the EPA will justify the adverse impact on the job market. These "regulatory agencies" have too much power. Time to de-fund.
I mentioned before that different parts of our governemnts have conflicting goals. The most obvious conflict is when the government encourages fuel-conservation, while other areas of the government are encouraging travel and tourism.
It is not just the EPA or any other 1 agency that chokes-off a recovery. Think of all the barriers that the government has in an unemployed person starting their own business, or changing careers. In almost any business, even as one as simple skilled as a taxi-driver, the government can make it complicated. Licenses, fees, insurances, regulations, keeping books, environmental rules; and god-forbid if you hire some employees ... then you have a ton more to deal with.
We need less government and less rules. This GW issue just adds one more big layer to our onion, or should I say 500 LB pumpkin.
It is bad enough that we have Congress passing legislation that forces business out of the country. Now we have rogue agency heads trying to make their own legislation. This is the latest end around by the EPA to make their own version of Cap n Trade. All to satisfy an administration that does not like the way our Constitution was written to balance the power of the 3 separate entities.
EPA moving unilaterally to limit greenhouse gases
WASHINGTON (AP) — Stymied in Congress, the Obama administration is moving unilaterally to clamp down on greenhouse emissions, announcing plans for new power plants and oil refinery emission standards over the next year.
In an announcement posted on the agency's website late Thursday, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson said the aim was to better cope with pollution contributing to climate change.
"We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans," Jackson said in a statement. She said emissions from power plants and oil refineries constitute about 40 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution in this country.
Jackson's announcement came on the same day that the administration showed a go-it-alone approach on federal wilderness protection — another major environmental issue. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his agency was repealing the Bush era's policy limiting wilderness protection, which was adopted under former Interior Secretary Gale Norton.
Two days after the midterm elections, Obama served notice that he would look for ways to control global warming pollution other than Congress placing a ceiling on it.
"Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way," he said. "I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem."
As conference delegates shivered in Cancun during its coldest weather in 100 years, power-hungry elitists labored behind the scenes to implement the real goal of this “global warming” summit, this sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-16), this clever political con job.
That the Cancun summit was never a climate conference at all has become increasingly obvious. Even before it began, IPCC Working Group III co-chair Ottmar Edenhofer said, COP-16 is actually “one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War . One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.” In fact, it has “almost nothing to do with the environmental policy.” Its real purpose “is redistributing the world's wealth and natural resources.”
A few days later, IPCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres told conference attendees, “The world is looking for new answers to the political, economic and social challenges which all countries face.” That the “new answers” focused primarily on how much more money and technology developed nations “owe” poor countries further affirmed the proceedings’ true nature.
I think this paragraph says a lot about the subject:
Climate alarmists say poor families will be devastated by global warming, unless we slash carbon dioxide emissions. No. The world’s poor are being devastated right now by climate alarmism. US Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) and others who say poor countries must live “sustainably” and rely on “renewable” energy are rich, callous hypocrites, Canadian policy analyst Redmond Weissenberger said. They would never live that way themselves, but they want Earth’s poorest people to forego “the energy, wealth, health, clean water, safety and longer lives we enjoy, thanks to fossil fuels.”
When all of Washington DC is powered by sustainable energy, get back to US would be my thinking.
Thankfully COP-16 was not successful in causing too much damage. Just the millions wasted sending 15,000 delegates on vacation to Cancun.
The outcome of the summit was an agreement, not a binding treaty, which aims to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels and calls on rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as pledged in the Copenhagen Accord, and for developing countries to plan to reduce their emissions. The agreement includes a "Green Climate" fund, proposed to be worth $100 billion a year by 2020, to assist poorer countries finance emission reductions and adaptation. There was no agreement on how to extend the Kyoto Protocol, or how the $100 billion a year for the Green Climate Fund will be raised, or whether developing countries should have binding emissions reductions or whether rich countries would have to reduce emissions first.
The New York Times described the agreement as being both a "major step forward" given that international negotiations had stumbled in recent years, and as being "fairly modest" as it did not require the changes that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous climate change. John Vidal, writing in The Guardian, criticised the Cancun agreements for not providing leadership, for not specifying how the proposed climate fund will be financed, and for not stating that countries had to "peak" their emissions within 10 years and then rapidly reduce them for there to be any chance to avert warming. Also criticised were the deferral of decisions on the legal form of and level of emission reductions required. Reuters Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle reported that to some delegates, particularly those from vulnerable African nations and low-lying islands, the Cancun talks seemed like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and the the Cancun agreements “fell woefully short of action needed”
Good article. Most thinking people have understood for some time what the U.N. is up to with their GW agenda. They want our money. They won't be happy until the U.S. is also a third world country. Misery loves company.
My definition of foreign aid still stands:
"When the poor people in a rich country sends money to the rich people in a poor country."
Climate: Nothing makes fools of more people than trying to predict the weather. Whether in Los Angeles or London, recent predictions have gone crazily awry. Global warming? How about mini ice age?
This is a big problem for those who see human-caused global warming as an irreversible result of the Industrial Revolution's reliance on carbon-based fuels. Based on global warming theory — and according to official weather forecasts made earlier in the year — this winter should be warm and dry. It's anything but. Ice and snow cover vast parts of both Europe and North America, in one of the coldest Decembers in history.
A cautionary tale? You bet. Prognosticators who wrote the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, global warming report in 2007 predicted an inevitable, century-long rise in global temperatures of two degrees or more. Only higher temperatures were foreseen. Moderate or even lower temperatures, as we're experiencing now, weren't even listed as a possibility.
Since at least 1998, however, no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality.
Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, "falsifiable." That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false. That's what scientific experimentation and observation do. That's the essence of the scientific method.
Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It's global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.
Nothing can disprove their thesis. Not even the extraordinarily frigid weather now creating havoc across most of the Northern Hemisphere. The Los Angeles Times, in a piece on the region's strangely wet and cold weather, paraphrases Jet Propulsion Laboratory climatologist Bill Patzert as saying, "In general, as the globe warms, weather conditions tend to be more extreme and volatile."
Please throw another log on the fire in memory of our old friend Tidester. I think he would appreciate the gesture. He didn't get over here enough, but when he did, he sure knew how to poke holes in theories - yours, mine and anyone else's.
Reading about Tidester and Pat, makes me realize just how fragile life is. No wonder Tidester always seemed so scientific in his posts. He was the real deal, not a wannabe like myself. I will miss him coming to the rescue when we were surrounded by global warming theorists.
I pray his family will be ok with his early passing from this life. 62 is a very young age to be taken. He will be missed by so many here at Edmund's and I am sure by his family and close friends.
Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, "falsifiable." That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false. That's what scientific experimentation and observation do. That's the essence of the scientific method.
Excellent point. As you might recall from our conversation in another thread, this was precisely my gripe with creationism: that it failed this test.
Excellent point. As you might recall from our conversation in another thread, this was precisely my gripe with creationism: that it failed this test.
My contention is all explanations of how we got to where we are today requires faith in something, that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The theory that we evolved from apes is still far from proven scientifically. If I am right and you are wrong, who is the biggest loser?
By the way I am not a hard nosed 7 day creationist. I fall more into the John Muir category of ultimate creationism. I find it much harder to believe that it all just happened.
I didn't spend much time corresponding with tidester but I am saddened by the loss of our Edmund's friend. 62 is way too young to pass on, agreed.
I pray his family will be ok with his early passing from this life. 62 is a very young age to be taken. He will be missed by so many here at Edmund's and I am sure by his family and close friends.
QUOTE In almost any business, even as one as simple skilled as a taxi-driver, the government can make it complicated. Licenses, fees, insurances, regulations, keeping books, environmental rules END QUOTE
So what we really want are half-asleep taxi drivers, since they'll start driving 18 hours/day if they don't need to keep books...
Plus if they don't need insurance, if you get in a car accident in a cab (caused by the cab driver) you're out of luck and have to pay your own medical bills.
And of course now anyone with a car can become a cab driver, since there are no more special licenses for cab drivers.
And without environmental regs, cab drivers could drive the most polluting piece of crap car out there if they no longer have any smog requirements.
AND this is just for a simple cab driver job...think about the more complicated industries without rules and regs and government "interference"
I don't think. we'd be better off in that type of a world.
And of course now anyone with a car can become a cab driver, since there are no more special licenses for cab drivers.
My very limited use of a taxi leads me to believe there is very little required to get a job driving a cab. At least in CA and AK. Not speaking much English is the norm. Being unfamiliar with the area would be the other prerequisite. And the vehicles are rarely in great condition. With so much government involvement it makes the price to ride in a cab ridiculous. I can call a friend to pick me up and buy them dinner for less than a cab ride home. No thanks to over regulation. Keeping it simple would make it better for all and attract a much higher class of people to the job. Here is the latest cost to even own a cab, with the government involved.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The price of a license to operate a New York taxi cab hit a record $600,000 in May, according to a lending company which financed the purchase.
Medallion Financial Corporation said it had financed the purchase of two medallions -- the license to operate a yellow cab in New York -- for a total of $1.2 million by a large corporate fleet operator.
"Prices of corporate medallions have increased from $195,000 in 2001 to the record $600,000 this week," Andrew Murstein, president of the lending company, said in a statement on Tuesday. It said the previous record was about $550,000.
It looks like NYC is worse than CA.
Many taxi drivers in US cities are recent immigrants who speak little English (a knowledge of Spanish often comes in handy), take circuitous routes (because they’re lost or because they’re crooks) and often charge whatever they can get away with (so make sure the meter is working). You should take a street map so that you have some idea of whether you’re taking a direct route or are being given the grand tour. Don’t hesitate to tell the driver if he is going the wrong way or point out on a map where you want to go (New York City cabbies have been known to give passengers a blank look when asked for the Empire State Building or Grand Central Station).
Most taxi drivers are supposed to take English and city-knowledge tests, although you would never guess (English is the second language of more than half of New York City’s cabbies). New York cabbies have a reputation for being among the rudest and most aggressive drivers in the world. Many Americans’ vision of hell is hurtling from pothole to pothole in a New York cab during the height of summer (naturally without air-conditioning), with the lunatic driver attempting to run down pedestrians and push other vehicles off the road while roundly cursing everyone and everything in sight in a foreign tongue.
Ah yes the rules and regulations have made taxi service so much better. NOT :confuse:
"...I don't think we'd be better off in that type of world..."
I don't think gracie is pushing for NO regs just that they consider the impact on people before they are made. Every time a cab has an accident you could make a new rule to prevent it but eventually you would make cab driving so restricted that you couldn't afford to hire one.
I see this every day as a school bus driver. Over the years new laws and requirements have been imposed every time there is an accident. At this point I now have to go through a 23 step procedure each time I board a student. Every one of those steps has a basis in safety but in total they make it nearly impossible to drive the bus and meet the regulations. Are my kids somewhat safer than 20 years ago? Perhaps slightly but is it worth the extra hour it takes to do the run? There come a point where extra regs return so little additional benefit that it's not worth it.
Another example is our state environmental agency is trying to stop rural landowners from having wood fired heating systems on their farms. They were trying to invoke rules that would have denied hot water to poor families for six months of the year. Their reason? Some neighbor might smell the wood smoke and not like it. The agency sitting in their nice warm city offices had no idea that these wood heating systems were located on 500 acre farms and were sometimes miles from neighbors.
I don't think anyone wants NO rules, just rules that don't devastate people's lives.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Another example is our state environmental agency is trying to stop rural landowners from having wood fired heating systems on their farms.
They better watch out. They are stepping on Obama's toes. I got a $1500 tax credit in 2009 when I bought a wood stove insert for my fireplace. 3 years ago only one neighbor was using wood to heat his home. Now about half the chimneys in the area have smoke rising from them when it gets cold. The cost of propane is a killer here. No natural gas in our area.
The tax credit - which can lower your tax bill on a dollar-for-dollar basis - applies to stoves or fireplace inserts purchased between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010 that:
* Burn a biomass fuel source like wood or renewable pellets
PS Rules that make sense are good. Most are to make someone rich that paid off his politician.
"Another example is our state environmental agency is trying to stop rural landowners from having wood fired heating systems on their farms. "
Perish the thought (pun intended)
What state is that, farmer? ...so I know to stay far far away. If they did that here in the north I, and many others, would quite literally perish. My backup heat is electric, so wood is crucial fuel in these parts. But it sure isn't a free ride by any means. I work my own forest....the entire process from a standing tree (I pick wind damaged splitters and push overs first) to getting it back to the house, to hand splitting. Altho I confess I just this past fall bought a splitter to help with the really knarly stuff cuz I slipped a disc in my back. I have also sold firewood to help pay the bills around here and just this past fall wondered if I might have to rely on even more sales in the future.
With 7 feh right now and falling, and a 15 mph wind, I guess I'll go down and put another log on..
Your response is very Black-and-White. What I'm stating is that the government needs some regulations, but has gone way too far in many cases. There really is no reason that anyone who has a license and a vehicle that is inspected, and thus has unlimited driving privileges, should not be allowed to run a taxi service without any further interference from the government. If your neighbor becomes unemployed tomorrow, and wants to make some $ by starting a taxi service, he should be able to. If you were to call him tomorrow because your car is broken and you need a ride downtown, the only difference in whether he "just does it" or he has a taxi-service is - if he charges you. There is no difference other than the exchange of money.
The reason there are Medallions and all these regulations, is job protectionism. The taxi companies and taxi drivers do not want to lose $, by having others undercut their rates. It's nothing more than government and some wealthy business owners, conniving to fix rates, and limit competition. So many trades have learned this trick, trying to protect their jobs and high-wages.
Government isn't here to set monopolies, and be the implement of the powerful to gain more power and wealth. The MMGW is nothing more than environmentalists and the wealthy and powerful using a "possible-scenario" to gain more control thru their bureaucracies in the name of "doing good".
In all these cases it's just Greed, at the expense of others. Greedy people who are trying to grab and protect the most $ for themselves.
Around here (Michigan, Wisconsin...), there's a lot of opposition and regs about the wood furnaces that people put out in their yard, not so much the typical in house wood stove or fireplace.
The problem seems to be the short chimneys on the outdoor units that dump smoke 24/7 about 8' off the ground and it wafts everywhere before dispersing. Lots of towns have banned them I think.
I don't see the attraction. You have to load them at least once a day and it's cold outside.
Comments
In the last decade, the symbol for profligate federal spending was the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" -- a huge proposed span that would link the town of Ketchikan, Alaska, population 7,500, to an airport on Gravina Island. Powerful Alaska Republican lawmakers tried to stick American taxpayers with a huge chunk of the tab for this dubious project.
This decade, the symbol for federal pork-barrel excess may well be Trains to Nowhere -- and if Democrats get their way, those boondoggles could span the country. At least in blue states.
Last month, voters in Wisconsin and Ohio elected Republican governors. Rather than just talking about spending less, both Ohio's John Kasich and Wisconsin's Scott Walker had pledged, if elected, to reject funds earmarked for high-speed rail projects in the 2009 Obama stimulus package. Kasich said he would say no to $385 million for a train connecting Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. Walker said he would reject $810 million for a train from Madison to Milwaukee.
Both Kasich and Walker understood: Just because Washington is throwing around money, that doesn't mean taxpayers get a free ride.
There is no guarantee that if you build high-speed rail, passengers will come. As Randal O'Toole of the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute noted, "The Ohio and Wisconsin projects aren't even worthy of being called high-speed rail." The average speed for the Ohio's "3C" line is projected at 38.5 miles per hour; the speed for the Wisconsin line would average 59 mph. In short, these "high-speed" trains wouldn't even go faster than cars.
With round-trip Madison-Milwaukee fares projected to range from $44 to $66, it could be cheaper for one person to drive and certainly cheaper for two. And you can always take the bus.
Walker argued that Wisconsin, facing a $2.5 billion budget deficit next year, doesn't need to be saddled with the $7.5 million annual cost to operate the train.
Train enthusiasts argued that Walker had it all wrong. You don't say no to a free car just because you have to pay for gas and other operating costs.
But Wisconsin voters did not agree. The St. Norbert College Survey Center poll found that 55 percent of Wisconsin voters opposed taking the ostensibly free rail money.
After they were elected, Walker and Kasich asked the Obama administration to allow them to spend that $1.2 billion rail money on other projects in their states. Walker wanted to fix his state's bridges and highways. Kasich asked that, if the U.S. Department of Transportation refused the request, Ohio's $385 million go to the U.S. Treasury to reduce the federal deficit.
Instead, on Dec. 9, before either governor-elect assumed office, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that his department would redirect the $1.2 billion that would have gone to Wisconsin and Ohio to 14 other states. As the Weekly Standard's Stephen F. Hayes wrote, LaHood had sent the message "if you don't want to waste our money, we'll find someone who will."
California alone stands to gain up to $624 million of the forfeited stimulus funds -- on top of the more than $4.3 billion already earmarked for the planned high-speed rail project that would link San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim and eventually reach Sacramento and San Diego. California voters passed a $10 billion bond measure in 2008 to help fund the $43 billion project.
In November, the California High-Speed Rail Authority voted to approve the first segment of the project. It will start in the middle of nowhere (Borden) and go to nowhere (Corcoran)***. State Sen. Alan Lowenthal, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, said he fears the segment could turn into an "orphan" line, unusable by bullet trains.
Noting that an Obama official had announced that California would get an extra $715 million in the San Joaquin Valley congressional district of Democrat Jim Costa, just before Costa narrowly won re-election, Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters quickly dubbed the segment the "train to nowhere."
In July, LaHood had proclaimed the Madison-Milwaukee project as unstoppable. "High-speed rail is coming to Wisconsin. There's no stopping it."
Walker wrote a letter to President Obama in which he protested, "It's outrageous for Secretary LaHood to suggest that your administration can force Wisconsin to continue building a train it doesn't want and cannot afford."
LaHood's Dec. 9 power play makes it official. It doesn't matter what voters want or whether they think their state can afford to take free federal money. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, federal transportation dollars are the Democrats' loose change.
Train to Nowhere
*** That is a 69 mile stretch in the middle of CA. Not close to ANY populated area.
With England in the icy grip of the coldest December for a century, the temperature is set to drop to a record low, with more snow forecast in the coming days.
Last night, the temperature in Chesham, Buckinghamshire, fell to -19.6C, and experts believe a combination of snow-covered ground, clear skies and the shortest day of the year could produce a sub -26C thermometer reading tomorrow.
The previous record low of -26.1C, set in Shropshire in January 1982, could be eclipsed at an inland area that does not benefit from the warming effect of the sea.
Don't depend on mass transit would be the story in the EU this Christmas.
That snow outside is what global warming looks like (Guardian)
Did you see that Arnie is lobbying for a job doing energy/GW for Obama?
It amazes me the lengths an agency will go to when they are threatened with extinction. How many people would not say what the boss wants them to say when their job is on the line? NASA is on the Obama chopping block.
When it gets warm enough in Greenland to raise cattle and grow crops as the Vikings did in the Medieval warming period I will believe their tall tales. When NASA replaces the equipment pulled from the Northern tier that would refute their cherry picked data, it will be a start to returning their credibility.
Why did the Met Office forecast a "mild winter"?
Do you remember? They said it would be mild and damp, and between one degree and one and a half degrees warmer than average. Well, I am now 46 and that means I have seen more winters than most people on this planet, and I can tell you that this one is a corker.
Never mind the record low attained in Northern Ireland this weekend. I can't remember a time when so much snow has lain so thickly on the ground, and we haven't even reached Christmas. And this is the third tough winter in a row. Is it really true that no one saw this coming?
Actually, they did. Allow me to introduce readers to Piers Corbyn, meteorologist and brother of my old chum, bearded leftie MP Jeremy. Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.
Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its "mild winter" schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year's mythical "barbecue summer", and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.
He seems to get it right about 85 per cent of the time and serious business people - notably in farming - are starting to invest in his forecasts. In the eyes of many punters, he puts the taxpayer-funded Met Office to shame. How on earth does he do it? He studies the Sun.
Rest of the story
Schwarzenegger, who counts legislation combating global warming as one of his signature achievements in office, suggested he might be interested in a post dealing with energy or the environment.
"I'm a big believer in environmental issues," Schwarzenegger said, who added that he wanted a post where he could use his "celebrity power knowledge and experience" to impact public policy. "I've traveled the world. I'm very familiar with the world."
It's not a far-fetched idea. Obama has often mentioned Schwarzenegger as someone he's like to have in the Cabinet, citing his work on climate change. For months, there have been rumors in Washington that the former action star might join the administration as a climate change czar or as an adviser on energy and the environment. The White House has repeatedly declined to comment on personnel issues.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
This is cool.
Mummified Arctic forest could yield clues to global warming (CNN)
The man is a fool and that juist makes him even more attractive to other fools, especially those in politics.
The implications of that as related to this topic are that many people whether unemployed, underemployed, or just plain ol' employed are struggling to survive And it sounds like that percentage of our population is growing. So that does not bode well with utopian thoughts of people making more expensive, but so-called environmentally friendly choices.
When you're cold and hungry, you'll make whatever choice is necessary.
I hope you folks in the U.K. realize by now, that all this GW (haha) isn't going to result in palm trees along the English Channel. As usual, you'll get the story that it "Is warming elsewhere, and it's hotter than ever". But funny how there are few cases where someone can point out where it is warmer. The cold air we've been getting has been coming from the Arctic; it sure seems to be plenty cold there, despite all this supposed news of the Arctic melting away.
Tell your government to invest in snowplows, salt, deicer, and give tax-credits for people to buy snowtires, instead of carbon credits. Because GW is always happening somewhere else, AFAIK.
Another report on that study I linked the other day:
Biting winters driven by global warming (AFP)
Those clowns should be comedy writers. Still laughing !! :P
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
If German meteorologist Thomas Globig's prediction is on the money, forget global warming, get ready for another ice age.
The cold now sweeping over Europe and other parts of the globe are due to natural cycles, says . He points out that the first 2 weeks of December in Britain have been the coldest since the last little ice age 350 years ago, and claims some climate models have criminally under-estimated solar influence on climate and that we ought to expect colder winters, and expanding Arctic ice in the years ahead.
"Some climate forecasts will have to be thrown in the dustbin."
Note that Globig says the change is due to completely natural cycles. Interestingly, there's lots of data to support global cooling.
Meanwhile, the clueless climate change alarmists continue with their gibberish about global warming due to human emissions of CO2, and have now even expanding their man-made claims to include non-CO2 pollutants.
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2010/12/german_meteorol.php
Better get out of the stock market too.
2013 Catastrophic Economic Crisis Predicted (Technorati)
We are having an unusually early rainfall season in So CA. These kind of rains are generally in the Spring. I just passed 3.8 inches on my patio since Sunday when it started to rain. We are right at 8 inches since July 1st. Normal is 3.67" for that time period. CA has 130% of its needed snowpack for our water supply. The ski resorts near Tahoe had 10 feet by Thanksgiving and the report last night was they are over 13 feet so far this season. Should fill our reservoirs this Spring. If it is GW, I say bring it on.
Which year was equally as hot as 2010?
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years (Science Daily)
January to November, currently places the year as the seventh warmest on records dating back to 1850.
back to 1850 they had records?
The combined global land and ocean surface average temperature for March 2009 was the 10th warmest since records began in 1880
There was a report last week out of the UK that claimed it was the coldest whatever since records dating back to 1659. These so called high paid government scientists play loose and easy with the data as we all know now. So why would you believe anything they say? Last I read the ocean temps have remained flat since they deployed the new deep water system. NASA still puts out Hansen data sets. We all know he is a government shill.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the Muller interview:
question What’s your take on NASA climate scientist James Hansen?
answer Hansen I’ve known for many years. He’s a very good climate scientist, but he’s decided to do the politics. I feel that he’s doing some cherry-picking of his own [when it comes to the science]. At that point, he’s not really being a scientist. At that point, you’re being a lawyer. He’s being an effective advocate for his side, but in the process of doing that he’s no longer a neutral party and he’s no longer giving both sides of the issues.
It is a matter of who you trust to tell the truth. I will never trust a person that is paid to push an agenda.
Scientists trace heat-conserving structure to era when Antarctica was warm (MSNBC)
All the fuss over a blessing of warmer weather. I am with Kernick. Bring on the warmth. I would love the average here to be 10 degrees warmer year round. I prefer the tropics to the Arctic. I am loving this rain as well. It is money in the bank. Just dumped my rain gauge that was full at 5.25". And it is still coming down nicely. Maybe our reservoirs, water table and wells will get back to a good level. No snow this time, too warm. :-)
On another note I was watching The Universe the other night on History Channel and the show was about the Sun. The Sun currently is about 1/2 way thru its life, and as it uses up its hydrogen fuel the Sun is slowly growing. The Sun will continue to grow until it covers the orbit of Mercury and Venus, and possibly reach to earth's present orbit. Even if it doesn't reach our orbit the Earth's oceans will be boiled-away. (There is a theory that as the Sun grows, with its core shrinking, that this may save the Earth by pushing our orbit out). Anyway the point is the Sun and any other part of nature aren't static. Change is normal. The Sun is going to grow, and become a Red Giant.
The Sun was, is. and will be The main factor of climate on the Earth. Just the sunlight that comes in our very, very small direction (93 million miles away), is more in 1 day that mankind's energy usage for the year.
Sounds like a tipping point.
Halfway...the sun isn't going to be done in 2012 is it? I think I read that someone reinterpreted the Mayan calendar and moved the end of time date back to 2013.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
In the news:
"the mute gray boxes atop Mauna Loa keep spitting out their numbers, providing a reality check"
A Scientist, His Work and a Climate Reckoning (NY Times)
Back to Claires' question, 2nd highest since 1891 (Economic Times India). And along the same lines, NASA and NOAA don't agree (but they're close - climatecentral.org).
I thought the latest data proved that CO2 levels rise following a rise in temperatures. Mauna Loa is also very close to a lot of active volcanic eruptions. I would think that would add a lot of CO2. Making that device somewhat useless. Of course they will spread the data as long as the Feds keep sending them money. It is still all about the money.
The other variable of putting a climate monitoring station in a seismically active area with deep ocean waters, is that volcanic vents on the ocean floor are not well charted. Probably there are more vents of unknown location then known. So the station on Mauna Loa could be picking up increased venting/activity of these unknown ocean-floor vents.
Steve - I'm planning on spending all my $ by the 2012 date. If that's wrong, I'll just live on credit for a year until Armageddon in 2013.
You can join the countdown party in France.
By NewsCore - Armageddon-fearing pilgrims were flocking to a village deep in the southern French hills after a countdown was started to the end of the world, which stood Thursday at a mere 729 days to go.
Followers of the Mayan calendar believe the mountain in the Corbieres hills overlooking the village of Bugarach, east of the Pyrenees, was endorsed by aliens as a safe place to survive the demise of civilization.
The countdown began Tuesday, exactly two years until Dec. 21, 2012 -- the movement's assigned Judgment Day.
The AGW Cult ain't got nothing on this bunch. Wonder if Al Gore is involved in this scam also.
In a nutshell, the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule will treat emissions from renewable biomass energy the same as emissions from the use of fossil fuels, despite the fact that both policymakers and scientists have long considered biomass emissions to be carbon-neutral due to the life cycle of the forests from which biomass is produced.
This new rule and regulatory uncertainty could spell the end of the biomass energy industry by removing the carbon-neutral status of biomass and, consequently, the biggest incentive to continue investing in it. Recent estimates have shown that biomass generated from forest byproducts could supply as much as 15 percent of the nation’s renewable energy by 2021, yet this will likely never be realized if biomass producers are forced to comply with arbitrary, unfair and unnecessary regulations like those in the Tailoring Rule.
In addition to harming domestic renewable energy development and the economy, the EPA commits a crime that Mr. Scrooge would never commit: wasting money. In President Obama's “stimulus” program alone, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy have collectively spent more than $100 million of taxpayer money to promote biomass power production.
Even Representative Collin Peterson (D-MN), the outgoing Chair of the House Agriculture, said before the election, “[The EPA is] screwing things up. They’re raising costs for people, they’re raising the price of food, and I don’t think they’re accomplishing anything.”
EPA says no mas to Biomass energy
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/13/13greenwire-epa-issues-final-tailoring-r- ule-for-greenhouse-32021.html
So much for the "recovery". It'll be interesting how the EPA will justify the adverse impact on the job market.
These "regulatory agencies" have too much power. Time to de-fund.
It is not just the EPA or any other 1 agency that chokes-off a recovery. Think of all the barriers that the government has in an unemployed person starting their own business, or changing careers. In almost any business, even as one as simple skilled as a taxi-driver, the government can make it complicated. Licenses, fees, insurances, regulations, keeping books, environmental rules; and god-forbid if you hire some employees ... then you have a ton more to deal with.
We need less government and less rules. This GW issue just adds one more big layer to our onion, or should I say 500 LB pumpkin.
EPA moving unilaterally to limit greenhouse gases
WASHINGTON (AP) — Stymied in Congress, the Obama administration is moving unilaterally to clamp down on greenhouse emissions, announcing plans for new power plants and oil refinery emission standards over the next year.
In an announcement posted on the agency's website late Thursday, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson said the aim was to better cope with pollution contributing to climate change.
"We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans," Jackson said in a statement. She said emissions from power plants and oil refineries constitute about 40 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution in this country.
Jackson's announcement came on the same day that the administration showed a go-it-alone approach on federal wilderness protection — another major environmental issue. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his agency was repealing the Bush era's policy limiting wilderness protection, which was adopted under former Interior Secretary Gale Norton.
Two days after the midterm elections, Obama served notice that he would look for ways to control global warming pollution other than Congress placing a ceiling on it.
"Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way," he said. "I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem."
That the Cancun summit was never a climate conference at all has become increasingly obvious. Even before it began, IPCC Working Group III co-chair Ottmar Edenhofer said, COP-16 is actually “one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War . One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.” In fact, it has “almost nothing to do with the environmental policy.” Its real purpose “is redistributing the world's wealth and natural resources.”
A few days later, IPCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres told conference attendees, “The world is looking for new answers to the political, economic and social challenges which all countries face.” That the “new answers” focused primarily on how much more money and technology developed nations “owe” poor countries further affirmed the proceedings’ true nature.
I think this paragraph says a lot about the subject:
Climate alarmists say poor families will be devastated by global warming, unless we slash carbon dioxide emissions. No. The world’s poor are being devastated right now by climate alarmism. US Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) and others who say poor countries must live “sustainably” and rely on “renewable” energy are rich, callous hypocrites, Canadian policy analyst Redmond Weissenberger said. They would never live that way themselves, but they want Earth’s poorest people to forego “the energy, wealth, health, clean water, safety and longer lives we enjoy, thanks to fossil fuels.”
When all of Washington DC is powered by sustainable energy, get back to US would be my thinking.
CC the BIG CON
The outcome of the summit was an agreement, not a binding treaty, which aims to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels and calls on rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as pledged in the Copenhagen Accord, and for developing countries to plan to reduce their emissions. The agreement includes a "Green Climate" fund, proposed to be worth $100 billion a year by 2020, to assist poorer countries finance emission reductions and adaptation. There was no agreement on how to extend the Kyoto Protocol, or how the $100 billion a year for the Green Climate Fund will be raised, or whether developing countries should have binding emissions reductions or whether rich countries would have to reduce emissions first.
The New York Times described the agreement as being both a "major step forward" given that international negotiations had stumbled in recent years, and as being "fairly modest" as it did not require the changes that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous climate change. John Vidal, writing in The Guardian, criticised the Cancun agreements for not providing leadership, for not specifying how the proposed climate fund will be financed, and for not stating that countries had to "peak" their emissions within 10 years and then rapidly reduce them for there to be any chance to avert warming. Also criticised were the deferral of decisions on the legal form of and level of emission reductions required. Reuters Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle reported that to some delegates, particularly those from vulnerable African nations and low-lying islands, the Cancun talks seemed like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and the the Cancun agreements “fell woefully short of action needed”
All's well that ends well. :P
My definition of foreign aid still stands:
"When the poor people in a rich country sends money to the rich people in a poor country."
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Climate: Nothing makes fools of more people than trying to predict the weather. Whether in Los Angeles or London, recent predictions have gone crazily awry. Global warming? How about mini ice age?
This is a big problem for those who see human-caused global warming as an irreversible result of the Industrial Revolution's reliance on carbon-based fuels. Based on global warming theory — and according to official weather forecasts made earlier in the year — this winter should be warm and dry. It's anything but. Ice and snow cover vast parts of both Europe and North America, in one of the coldest Decembers in history.
A cautionary tale? You bet. Prognosticators who wrote the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, global warming report in 2007 predicted an inevitable, century-long rise in global temperatures of two degrees or more. Only higher temperatures were foreseen. Moderate or even lower temperatures, as we're experiencing now, weren't even listed as a possibility.
Since at least 1998, however, no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality.
Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, "falsifiable." That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false. That's what scientific experimentation and observation do. That's the essence of the scientific method.
Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It's global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.
Nothing can disprove their thesis. Not even the extraordinarily frigid weather now creating havoc across most of the Northern Hemisphere. The Los Angeles Times, in a piece on the region's strangely wet and cold weather, paraphrases Jet Propulsion Laboratory climatologist Bill Patzert as saying, "In general, as the globe warms, weather conditions tend to be more extreme and volatile."
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/557597/201012221907/The-Abiding- -Faith-Of-Warm-ongers.htm
KarenS, "Stories from the Sales Frontlines" #63079, 26 Dec 2010 7:13 am
I pray his family will be ok with his early passing from this life. 62 is a very young age to be taken. He will be missed by so many here at Edmund's and I am sure by his family and close friends.
Excellent point. As you might recall from our conversation in another thread, this was precisely my gripe with creationism: that it failed this test.
My contention is all explanations of how we got to where we are today requires faith in something, that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The theory that we evolved from apes is still far from proven scientifically. If I am right and you are wrong, who is the biggest loser?
By the way I am not a hard nosed 7 day creationist. I fall more into the John Muir category of ultimate creationism. I find it much harder to believe that it all just happened.
I pray his family will be ok with his early passing from this life. 62 is a very young age to be taken. He will be missed by so many here at Edmund's and I am sure by his family and close friends.
R.I.P tidester
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
QUOTE In almost any business, even as one as simple skilled as a taxi-driver, the government can make it complicated. Licenses, fees, insurances, regulations, keeping books, environmental rules END QUOTE
So what we really want are half-asleep taxi drivers, since they'll start driving 18 hours/day if they don't need to keep books...
Plus if they don't need insurance, if you get in a car accident in a cab (caused by the cab driver) you're out of luck and have to pay your own medical bills.
And of course now anyone with a car can become a cab driver, since there are no more special licenses for cab drivers.
And without environmental regs, cab drivers could drive the most polluting piece of crap car out there if they no longer have any smog requirements.
AND this is just for a simple cab driver job...think about the more complicated industries without rules and regs and government "interference"
I don't think. we'd be better off in that type of a world.
My very limited use of a taxi leads me to believe there is very little required to get a job driving a cab. At least in CA and AK. Not speaking much English is the norm. Being unfamiliar with the area would be the other prerequisite. And the vehicles are rarely in great condition. With so much government involvement it makes the price to ride in a cab ridiculous. I can call a friend to pick me up and buy them dinner for less than a cab ride home. No thanks to over regulation. Keeping it simple would make it better for all and attract a much higher class of people to the job. Here is the latest cost to even own a cab, with the government involved.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The price of a license to operate a New York taxi cab hit a record $600,000 in May, according to a lending company which financed the purchase.
Medallion Financial Corporation said it had financed the purchase of two medallions -- the license to operate a yellow cab in New York -- for a total of $1.2 million by a large corporate fleet operator.
"Prices of corporate medallions have increased from $195,000 in 2001 to the record $600,000 this week," Andrew Murstein, president of the lending company, said in a statement on Tuesday. It said the previous record was about $550,000.
It looks like NYC is worse than CA.
Many taxi drivers in US cities are recent immigrants who speak little English (a knowledge of Spanish often comes in handy), take circuitous routes (because they’re lost or because they’re crooks) and often charge whatever they can get away with (so make sure the meter is working). You should take a street map so that you have some idea of whether you’re taking a direct route or are being given the grand tour. Don’t hesitate to tell the driver if he is going the wrong way or point out on a map where you want to go (New York City cabbies have been known to give passengers a blank look when asked for the Empire State Building or Grand Central Station).
Most taxi drivers are supposed to take English and city-knowledge tests, although you would never guess (English is the second language of more than half of New York City’s cabbies). New York cabbies have a reputation for being among the rudest and most aggressive drivers in the world. Many Americans’ vision of hell is hurtling from pothole to pothole in a New York cab during the height of summer (naturally without air-conditioning), with the lunatic driver attempting to run down pedestrians and push other vehicles off the road while roundly cursing everyone and everything in sight in a foreign tongue.
Ah yes the rules and regulations have made taxi service so much better. NOT :confuse:
I don't think gracie is pushing for NO regs just that they consider the impact on people before they are made. Every time a cab has an accident you could make a new rule to prevent it but eventually you would make cab driving so restricted that you couldn't afford to hire one.
I see this every day as a school bus driver. Over the years new laws and requirements have been imposed every time there is an accident. At this point I now have to go through a 23 step procedure each time I board a student. Every one of those steps has a basis in safety but in total they make it nearly impossible to drive the bus and meet the regulations. Are my kids somewhat safer than 20 years ago? Perhaps slightly but is it worth the extra hour it takes to do the run? There come a point where extra regs return so little additional benefit that it's not worth it.
Another example is our state environmental agency is trying to stop rural landowners from having wood fired heating systems on their farms. They were trying to invoke rules that would have denied hot water to poor families for six months of the year. Their reason? Some neighbor might smell the wood smoke and not like it. The agency sitting in their nice warm city offices had no idea that these wood heating systems were located on 500 acre farms and were sometimes miles from neighbors.
I don't think anyone wants NO rules, just rules that don't devastate people's lives.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
They better watch out. They are stepping on Obama's toes. I got a $1500 tax credit in 2009 when I bought a wood stove insert for my fireplace. 3 years ago only one neighbor was using wood to heat his home. Now about half the chimneys in the area have smoke rising from them when it gets cold. The cost of propane is a killer here. No natural gas in our area.
The tax credit - which can lower your tax bill on a dollar-for-dollar basis - applies to stoves or fireplace inserts purchased between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010 that:
* Burn a biomass fuel source like wood or renewable pellets
PS
Rules that make sense are good. Most are to make someone rich that paid off his politician.
Perish the thought
(pun intended)
What state is that, farmer? ...so I know to stay far far away. If they did that here in the north I, and many others, would quite literally perish. My backup heat is electric, so wood is crucial fuel in these parts. But it sure isn't a free ride by any means. I work my own forest....the entire process from a standing tree (I pick wind damaged splitters and push overs first) to getting it back to the house, to hand splitting. Altho I confess I just this past fall bought a splitter to help with the really knarly stuff cuz I slipped a disc in my back. I have also sold firewood to help pay the bills around here and just this past fall wondered if I might have to rely on even more sales in the future.
With 7 feh right now and falling, and a 15 mph wind, I guess I'll go down and put another log on..
There really is no reason that anyone who has a license and a vehicle that is inspected, and thus has unlimited driving privileges, should not be allowed to run a taxi service without any further interference from the government.
If your neighbor becomes unemployed tomorrow, and wants to make some $ by starting a taxi service, he should be able to. If you were to call him tomorrow because your car is broken and you need a ride downtown, the only difference in whether he "just does it" or he has a taxi-service is - if he charges you. There is no difference other than the exchange of money.
The reason there are Medallions and all these regulations, is job protectionism. The taxi companies and taxi drivers do not want to lose $, by having others undercut their rates. It's nothing more than government and some wealthy business owners, conniving to fix rates, and limit competition. So many trades have learned this trick, trying to protect their jobs and high-wages.
Government isn't here to set monopolies, and be the implement of the powerful to gain more power and wealth. The MMGW is nothing more than environmentalists and the wealthy and powerful using a "possible-scenario" to gain more control thru their bureaucracies in the name of "doing good".
In all these cases it's just Greed, at the expense of others. Greedy people who are trying to grab and protect the most $ for themselves.
The problem seems to be the short chimneys on the outdoor units that dump smoke 24/7 about 8' off the ground and it wafts everywhere before dispersing. Lots of towns have banned them I think.
I don't see the attraction. You have to load them at least once a day and it's cold outside.