Slashdot Mirror
Do We Really Need a National Climate Service?
coondoggie writes "I suppose it's natural for Washington to try and wrap issues up in a tidy legislative package for bureaucratic purposes (or perhaps other things more nefarious). But one has to wonder if we really need another government-led group, especially when it comes to the climate and all the sometimes controversial information that entails.
But that's what is under way. Today the House Science and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing on the need for a National Climate Service, that could meet the increased demand for climate information, the committee said.
The NCS would provide a single point of contact of information climate forecasts and support for planning and management decisions by federal agencies; state, local, and tribal governments; and the private sector."
Obviously it's a good thing.
At least always better than letting Halliburton, Enron and Total decide what our future looks like.
The US gov't already swallows 36% of GDP. What is feeding another couple hundred parasites?
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Hell yes
I mean, the real question is whether or not there's even any climate change going on in the first place! But if we concede the point that it might be happening, is it man-made? Because if it's natural instead of man-made, that changes everything, right? A 10 degree change in average temp may see the polar caps melt and seas rise by 200 feet but if this was going to happen anyway it's no longer a problem, right? But I still say the jury's out on this one. Just like with the addictiveness of nicotine. There's been no conclusive scientific evidence from scientists paid by the tobacco industry to show that there's any addictiveness with nicotine. Oh, and that prison torture in Iraq? Did you not listen to the press conference? Bad apples in the lowest ranks of the military, nothing more.
I really wish people would pay more attention to the official story. A lot of time and money has been put into getting it down pat and it's incredibly disrespectful to then go and listen to other sources.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
This will undoubtedly induce all sorts of railing about both the government and climate, but this step was actually recommended by the National Academies of Science, and I'm happy that it's being seriously considered. The NAS issued in a report that, distilled down, says that we're already paying for climate science, but the info generated by that work isn't reaching the people who need it most, like the ones that have to manage water supplies in the desert southwest. When those people do find the research, it's typically not structured in a way that's especially useful to them. (For a more elaborate summary of the report, see here - full disclosure, i wrote that).
So, this is largely an attempt to take information we're already producing (the government has paid for climate research for a long time through NOAA and the NSF) and make it useful.
______ This mind intentionally left blank.
I guess they are not political enough.
Reliable data that doesn't come from people with vested interests is a great thing and very useful for decision-making.
However, if the ruling party is able to secretly quash unfavorable datasets or pressure the report makers, then it's a waste.
What is with the paranoid underlying tone of the article ? "nefarious", could be "large government entity" ? When you have people that doesn't want the government to work (i.e last 8 year), we saw positions filled by political criteria rather than individual merits. It's time that the federal government have a organized response and start basing their decision based on scientific merits. All this sounds like is an information dissemination service ? Depending on the mandate of this new organization, what is wrong with organizing and have a focused approach on a large global issue ?
Meanwhile, in Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal mutters something about all this wasteful government spending.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana"
Round my part's of the wood's climate is what you does to a mounting, and that's how I likes it.
Keep the whitehouse white, vote Trump & Palin 2020.
The weather impacts crops, military operations, flight plans, hurricane preparedness, and countless other things. Weather forecasts require data gathered from all around the world. State, local, and tribal governments don't have the reach to collect this data on their own. That leaves only private industry. Do you really want to pay a private company to know what the forecast is, particularly when the data would most likely be collected at taxpayer expense anyway? If weather services were privatized, would it be legal to share the forecast with your colleagues?
National Climatic Data Center, Asheville NC The only problem is that the charge $$$$ for the data that has already been collected at taxpayer expense.
The NCS would fall under the auspices of NOAA but would utilize the expertise and resources of other federal agencies to meet the growing demand for climate services, the committee stated.
NOAA describes the NCS as being the nation's identified, accessible, official source of authoritative, regular, and timely climate information. That includes historical and real-time data, monitoring and assessments, research and modeling, predictions and projections, decision support tools and early warning systems, and the development and delivery of valued climate services.
Which part of this is unclear? This is NOAA (who are good at what they do) getting access to even more "expertise and resources." Sounds cool.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
I'm mainly with Dr Jay on this.
The European Geosciences Union meeting in Vienna a couple of weeks back highlighted this point: funding bodies are interested in, say, 'what the climate will be like' in twenty years in a specific place (probably a country) - typically no mention is made of the numerous uncertainties involved.
You are unlikely to get that grant if you point out that what is being asked is the wrong sort of question and that what should be happening is internationally co-operative, team-based and includes mathematicians (preferably Bayesian statisticians) qualified to wrangle the data and develop new stats methodologies. I say wrangle the data as actually getting RAW data from scientists can be a very difficult and frustrating process - often you get binned averages and the declaration that this is the raw data. Yeah, I know, picky!
There's a frequent cry of 'but we are scientists and, therefore, co-operative' from people who, of course, have had to compete for funding and many of whom privately admit to being intensely competitive individuals: "That's how I got the job in the first place" as one of them said to me at the conference.
Often, as with much funding, you simply find that people who have been previously successful in getting funding see a new gravy train rolling into town and jump on - difficult to compete with the established egos if you are an unassuming but cheap and ideally suited researcher.
At the EGU meeting (http://meetings.copernicus.org/egu2009/) a late addition of a session concerned with uncertainty was packed out and a fair number of scientists heard, many for the first time, that the classical maths tools that they've typically been using are simply not up to snuff.
So, is this proposal a Good Thing(TM)? I reckon that it is - I hope so as well as the clock is most definitely ticking.
As a fun aside, with methane being the number one greenhouse gas, the biggest difference we can make (in the medium term - pause for fart gags) as individuals is to go veggie :-)
What's wrong with the National Weather Service? Part of NOAA.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Could your post not be modded down because it's horseshit?
Or is that not an option?
Well it'd have to be horseshit for that to be an option. So no, not an option.
But I fully expect that his 5: Insightful moderation will begin to evaporate as the left coast wakes up, has a few bong hits, stumbles down to Starbucks and gets some caffeine in it only to discover an infidel has been blaspheming against all the gospel.
Kind of like the War Department that morphed into the Defense Department when there wasn't a war anymore. But look how much we've benefited from a pervasive and powerful military industrial complex!
At least the military threat to our country was OCCASIONALLY not contrived...
-Styopa
How about using the agency that's job already IS monitoring climate, and meteorology, and just about everything related to the atmosphere and hydrosphere
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
insightful? Or are there just certain buzzwords that people are compelled to rate higher?
The future of our climate isn't being decided by corporations, it is being decided by an overly politicized system. Contrary laws and NIMBY laws are what are screwing us. I won't even try to list what is beyond our control outside our borders that may just undo anything we can try.
Look, they have pushed this line of thought for so long that they are locked in. They have to create a new office, which in turn can issue all sorts of "findings of fact", so that they can continue their agenda. After all, a National Climate office wouldn't release opinion now would they? There would never be the slightest bias in presentation of what is fact or how to read numbers would there?
Get real.
Lets see what they are doing to help the environment?
1. Pushing new incentives for bio fuels while not curtailing the fraud of corn based ethanol. ... thank you Al for poisoning all are water supplies.
2. Ignoring know safe energy production of nuclear because certain people in the Administration hate it, let alone the moonbats in Congress. Gee, if it works for France and even Germany is considering it it might be a good idea!
3. Cap and Trade . Backdoor tax on the poor and middle class without calling it that.
4. Remember MBTE
5. I am quite sure the Military isn't friendly to the environment on a whole; but I excuse a lot of what they do.
Sorry, the government does more damage when political regulations being implemented rather than scientific. The majority of their regulations seek to curry favor of specific groups or to pay them back for their activities related to elections. The preponderance of evidence against many forms of man made global warming is building faster than support for it.
No, its the moonbats coming to roost. They are going to create a new government bureaucracy where we already have more than one which does the same job. Instead of trying to find ways to save the American tax payer money they look for ways to guilt them or waste their money.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The argument you make is quite dishonest. By conflating activist groups with government leaders, you try to pretend the GP said something that he did not. His point was that history shows that we cannot trust corporate interests to be honest participants in a debate on climate. We cannot trust their data, we cannot trust their motives. They create phony "think tanks" with the sole purpose of obfuscation.
Yes, we need a National Climate Service.
You know what? I trust a democratic (small "D") system. If a multinational corporation pollutes a river, causing cancer deaths and birth defects, we can't vote out the corporate officers and their deep pockets protects them from legal recourse (see: A Civil Action). If I hate the way the government's going, guess what? There's an election coming up. There's always an election coming up. And with the exception of a group Slave States that made a very bad decision in the 1860's, power has transferred peacefully in this system.
You know what's NOT in our Constitution? Capitalism. It's not there, I looked. Not by name, and not by inference. Because capitalism is not the same as "free enterprise" even though people mistakenly think they are synonymous.
But that's a discussion for another day and there are goldfinches on the tree outside my window and my dog wants a walk.
But bluestrat, that was just a shitty troll. Ineffective, wrong-headed and stupid. Plus, you wrapped it all in a troll package with your "I bet I'm gonna get modded down" disclaimer, which is a sure sign that you intended your post to be a troll.
You've got a bit to learn, no matter how long you've been here.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Wow. You're full of hate. The sad part is, I don't think you're trolling - I think you actually believe that stuff.
You "highly doubt" that man-made carbon output is killing this planet? Take a look at this chart: List of Countries Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions
After you look at it, tell me that, for the US alone, 20.4 metric tons of CO2 times 300,000,000 people, isn't having an effect.
Or how about this chart? Greenhouse Gas Emissions Per Capita See how much of an impact deforestation is having?
These are real numbers. All you have is your pseudo-Ayn Randian Libertarian bullshit. We all went through that phase, and once we realized that it had serious flaws, we relegated it to "interesting, but not viable". The reaction to global warming is regulating our lives because so far we've been incapable of doing it ourselves. Capitalism is so concerned with the short-term wealth of its shareholders that it has failed to see the long-term implications of its actions. Burn another rainforest? Bah! We don't live there. Another Alaskan Oil Field? We'll die rich because of it, and screw the rest of ya.
Grow up and look around you. We're doing this. You're part of the problem.
I don't really see anything wrong for paying a "pollution tax" on products that are particularly nasty to make. Find more environmentally friendly alternatives. I don't understand why this doesn't seem reasonable to everybody. Even if the vast majority of scientists are incorrect (which is very rare, mind you), I still don't want to breathe in pollution so you can have cheap ass plastic and lead paint ridden toys for your kid.
And, I know I am just feeding the trolls here (judging by the super reliable link given), but try looking at some research from real organizations/universities about this stuff. Tinfoil hats aren't really renown for their scientific rigor.
It's as simple as that.
non-sarcasm:
We don't need to be worried about sea levels.. God never intended for us to worship the earth.
Proverbs 8:29 -
"When He assigned to the sea its limit, So that the waters would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth"
Genesis 8:22 -
"While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."
Even with the sun's output/sunspots being at record lows, and even in spite of this past winter, we're still well above 1990's temps. Burning fossil fuels, clean or not, still consumes oxygen as it produces co2, and yet we clear-cut a football field of forest every second. The question is... is a drop in the bucket in terms of expense and manpower really too much to ask for when the odds that we're facing a very difficult future are as good as or better than the odds that everything is a-ok. I'd rather err on the side of caution and create a few jobs in the process.
There's got to be an agency for climate change so that it can be put on display for the benefit of politicians, get wrapped up in bureaucratic bullshit, and never get anything done. This is no different than a company performing a hostile takeover of a competitor except that the government doesn't have to answer to any antitrust laws.
mmmm...forbidden donut
According to CNN, the administration is announcing a proposal tomorrow that will $17Billion by eliminating programs, and an official said "In many cases we have multiple programs that do the same things." So won't this just be adding another program that does the same thing. Climate, weather, come on, enough already.
Imagine a state that already has a Department of Child Protective Services saying that they need to create a new department called Department of Kid Protective Services because child abuse is getting worse so another department and increased overhead will certainly make everything better. Naturally, opponents to this would get to hear cries of Won't somebody please think of the children?
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
...then trying to prevent us from a potential global apocalypse seems like a pretty good thing to put on that list.
Is it necessary to defend the united states? No?
Then why is it the federal government's job?
Weather forecasting has its roots in military strategy. To the extent that climate forecasting might keep the country safe -- safe from real threats -- I'd support it being a job of the federal government.
I wish people would give up the idea that there is some dispassionate public interest that should be accorded to "scientists", while people holding the same education doing the same work that _dont_ milk from the public teat are shills, etc.
I'll be plain: nobody in the federal government serves _me_. You could fire the entire lot of them and it would be at least 6 months before I noticed. Well, i'd notice all the extra money that is no longer being extorted from me pretty much immediatley. Other than that? Not sure I'd miss em.
Anyway, I'm _shocked_ that a bunch of publicly funded climate activists are pandering for more money and power for climate activism.
I look forward to paying the salaries of a bunch of guys that will argue with each other over how important each of them is. James Hansen really needs some new competition, let's create a new three letter agency!
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Here are some more real numbers "The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
"Most government departments are memorials to dead problems." The downside to creating any new government organization is that it will live on long after its usefulness has passed. Even with a problem as long-term as climate change, the organization will either be bypassed or so morph into something else as to be useless.
"government-lead group"
Get the lead out (it should be "government-led").
OK, if weather is not at all the same thing as climate what's wrong with the National Climatic Data Center? Which is *also* part of NOAA ... "NCDC supports a three tier national climate services support program"
[Citation Needed]
How about the real environmental issues? This carbon tax Al Gore stuff is just for business men to repackage products.
Depopulation of sharks (HUGE environmental impact).
BONG HITS 4 JESUS
Why not just convert the National Weather Service or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Seriously? The top hit for that quote is a website that doesn't cite its sources. Trying to track down the origins of that quote leads to OTHER websites that don't cite their sources either. (c.f. this one, from 2007, this one, which looks suspiciously familiar, from 2005, and this one, which just links back to the first one. You gotta do better than that.
The NCS would provide a single point of contact of information climate forecasts and support for planning and management decisions by federal agencies; state, local, and tribal governments; and the private sector.
The NCS would provide a single point of lobbying and bribery by special interest groups and individuals pushing personal agendas under the guise of environmental responsibility.
There, fixed that for you.
...citation only needed if you have been living under a rock with your fingers in your ears, while hugging a tree and drinking green koolade for the past 30 years. For christ sakes, this is even admitted to in the climatologist manifesto... the IPCC's Third Assessment Report.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today is not unprecedented, and that in fact there is plenty of evidence for much higher levels, while simultaenously the earth being cooler.
Queue up the green folks who want to stress how long ago it was when levels were higher, as if how long ago prevents these facts from seriously questioning their crisis.
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
"His name was James Damore."
your "Science" is wrong.
"The early part of the Carboniferous was mostly warm; in the later part of the Carboniferous, the climate cooled."
The carbon load in the atmosphere dropped due to significant coral reef activity over a great number of epicontinental sea area fixing that carbon into limestone.
try this graph:
http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg
the Carboniferous started with average around 20C in the Devonian then dropped to 10C by the Early Permian
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
The ones claiming there is controversy regarding "the climate" (which in this case seems to be code for "Global Warming") are the GW denialists funded by Big Oil - same people who one would expect not to want government regulation.
google: exxon global warming denial
How about reading the article?
your statement is outright false see
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1224943&cid=27859561
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Well put, but there is a significant portion of the population that believes global warming/C02 costs fall somewhere on the spectrum between none and completely overblown.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
This agency exists, it's called the NOAA.
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
Don't we alredy have one. If they want to give it more authority they can write the legislation.
Why create yet another agency? We all know how well DHS has worked out.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
As child I used to bath in a river, which by now is so polluted my children cannot do the same.
Most waters of developed countries are polluted. Lakes and rivers die from eutrophisation, sea fish are so full of mercury, the FDA recommended pregnant women to avoid fish meals. The ecosystems are damaged, people poisoned. This at least can be easily verified, but still our governments have chosen to spend money on preventing the climate change, knowing that such changes had always occured in Earth's history, even the short human history. Organisms adapt to climate changes easily, they always did. To mercury and pesticides - perhaps not at all, so far surely not. You will wake up after 10 years more poor, poisoned and witnessing whatever climate change was to occur, because it will do so no matter how many beaurocrats you'll feed to fight it.
Which statement is that?
"His name was James Damore."
Are you saying the budget is 300% of the GDP, or 3%? Because both numbers are way off, even if you add in the spendulous bill (which, btw, doesn't all happen this year, even if it is committed this year).
According to the government itself, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/browse.html (look at summary tables), Federal spending will amount to 21% of the GDP.
Federal spending.
That does not, afaikt include the spendulous bill, and I was too lazy to skim through and see if it included debt service. It definitely does not include state governments, which while not federal are still government, and looking at my tax bill last year, are roughly equivalent (a little less) to the federal amount (assuming I don't live in a state that's exceptionally more spendthrift than the others.)
If you play with the chart posted by jgtg, you can see that their estimate for the federal spending is also 21%, which corresponds to the official government publication.
I don't really feel like going through all 50 states and adding up their spending to correlate the total spending figure, but it looks proper in regards to my personal tax bill, so I'm inclined to believe that state spending accounts for roughly 16% of the GDP.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Well it'd have to be horseshit for that to be an option. So no, not an option.
Oh, but it is, young padawan.
Kythe
They are called NOAA and NASA.
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Disclaimer: I work for the satellite branch of NOAA, NESDIS
NOAA's current structure is not optimal for executing the climate mission.
http://www.pco.noaa.gov/org/NOAA_Organization.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration
http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/PPI_Capabilities/Documents/BOM.pdf
Although many have suggested that the NWS would be the ideal home for this function, NWS is overly focused on operational meteorology in my opinion, and execution of the climate mission is divided between NESDIS, NWS, NOS and OAR.
NESDIS operates three environmental data centers which are effectively the archive for the climate mission, along with the large array data system.
NCDC http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
NGDC http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/
NODC http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/
CLASS http://www.class.ncdc.noaa.gov/saa/products/welcome ).
Other line offices in NOAA operate systems that are likewise focused on the climate mission, primarily in the NWS, NOS, and OAR.
Some have suggested it would be ideal to take a small part of the NWS, NOS, OAR, the data centers and CLASS, to stand up a new line office, The National Climate Service. This could be performed more as a reorganization of NOAA internally, without the bureaucratic trappings of another new line office, along with dual-hatting of a CIO and CFO from other line offices in NOAA
As an alternative, NOAA could use the matrix goal team structure in order to create the climate service. I believe such an approach would be ineffective, due to the lack of decision-making ability at those levels. NOAA, at the top, has an Executive Committee and an Executive Panel, that are crucial for determining budget priorities from NOAA's small budget. A National Climate Service, to be successful, must have representation at that level.
I know this may come as a shock to you, but the entire scientific community is not part of a vast international conspiracy against oil companies and Christians, no matter what your favorite propaganda-peddlers tell you.
The debate over global warming is ridiculous. Believing that you can predict a system as complex as earth's climate with any certainty is the same as believing in God. It shows how desperate we humans are to know The Truth and feel that we have control over absolutely everything in our lives, especially those things we can not control.
The honest answer is that we are not sure. Our computer models are flawed and do not account for all the variables they should. In any case, I think we can all agree that driving a more fuel efficient car is a good idea, but don't ruin science by pretending that we can predict the effect of CO2 emissions on earth's climate.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
20.4 * 300,000,000 = 6,120,000,000
6,120,000,000 / 5 quadrillion metric tons = 0.0000001% that's, um, really scary...
We need to let Science decide!
Actually, polluting companies will have a profit motive to move their pollution (and the associated jobs - but not employees) to a location where their profits will not be threatened by the increased costs involved in complying with local laws. If they fail to do so, they will discover they have a competitor who undercuts them by moving their production facilities to the "pollution friendly" nation. While it is nice sounding idea from a purely emotional viewpoint, the fiat approach just does not work so well in reality. No one actually likes pollution, but there is a fundamental economic equation that must be respected:
Profit = Price - Costs
Wal-Mart very quietly dropped its "Buy American" campaign some years back. Even when they had it, they were upfront that the American product had to beat the imported product on costs. Wal-Mart would not raise it prices to sell an American made card table over one produced in China.
Not only pollution controls, but worker health and safety requirements, compliance with a multitude of other government regulations all add costs which must be either passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices or a company must find a way to reduce costs toensure they are not pricing theselves out of business.Or, to make it simple,"the economy" will figure out how to make a profit - that does not mean it will figure out how to reduce pollution/cure cancer/save the whales/etc.
So, until you have a world government that makes everything the same for everyone, your legeslative approach is not going to work. And note that a world govenrment by itself is not enough - it has to treat everyone the same.And that would require the utter and immediate suppression of any and all "special interests".
One of the many fatal flaws in Kyoto was that it made distinctions between nations. "Developing nations" were not subjected to the same requirements as would be imposed on "developed" nations. I'm not saying there were no good reasons for making this distinction, but it does demonstrate an inherent unfairness and inequality that would prevent a "feel good" approach such as you advocate.
But if you seriously want to see a reduction in carbon emissions, then do not support legeslative restrictions on them in democratic countries. Instead push for ways to reduce the costs of energy sources that do not burn carbon. Do not have the government fund "studies" on how to make wind/solar/nuclear competitive and do not provide subsidies for wind and solar to make them competitve. Offer some form of cash reward for the companies that demonstrate competence by producing what is wanted. If you want energy, guarantee you will buy so many megawatts of "carbon free" energy at a set price in constant dollars. Note that this approach does not require any religious conviction regarding global warming/evils of carbon, etc. It does not require massive government exopenditures. It just requires that there be an opportunity for an honest profit.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
The "serious flaw" was that the future doesn't include you getting to force your will on other people?
Ayn Rand simply says this: you depend on the people you despise and want so desperately to control. They don't need you. Cut them loose. Let them rot without your glorious patronage. Fewer mouths for you to feed, right? What's the downside?
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
We have a perfectly good National Weather Service. Just add a "National Climate Center" to their mission and fund it. They've already got the expertise and management structures in place. NOAA and the NWS are actually parts of the government that work pretty well. As a pilot I used their products for years and am a very satisfied customer. In fact my only real complaint with the NWS is that for some bizarre reason, they don't enter tornado warnings and reports into the aviation weather system, which can make a real difference if you're flying a Jet Ranger--i.e. a little helicopter--around at 500 feet in the Florida panhandle. Instead we'd just have to listen to the local AM news station on our VHF radio for tornado warnings.
Obviously it's a good thing.
At least always better than letting Halliburton, Enron and Total decide what our future looks like.
Yea, we need more government. NOT!!! However TFA says it would under the auspices of NOAA.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
there is a whole school of thought (I don't subscribe to it, but it exists, and is valid as any other) that contends altruism leads to suffering, and only hurts in the long run.
There may be more than one school, but Ayn Rand thought that. She distinguished a difference between altruism and kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Are you kidding! Look, the Atmosphere is 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 1% "Other". Of that 1% Other, 3% is CO2. If you look at contribution sources of that CO2, something like 95-97% comes from natural sources, and the rest comes from people. Clearly this 3-5% human contribution of C02 since the 1940's is responsible for the destruction of the ice caps and the earth. I don't know how you can look at those numbers and deny humanities huge impact on the environment. You must be a communist baby seal hater or something!
Greenpeace opposes anything with co2 exhaust AND hates the one solution to the co2 problem that might actually work (today, not in 50 years) : nuclear power
There are at least two problems with this statement. Nuclear power is not a solution to CO2, and it will not work today. It takes years and years to build a nuclear power plant. The last one to go online in the US took more than 20 years to build. But even if you could build one in 5 years, that's still not today. However today you can erect 5 megawatt wind turbines quickly. If you erect 20 a month, in 1 year you'll add 1,200 megawatts of capacity a year and in five years you'll have added 6 gigawatts of capacity. Even if the energy captured comes to half that that's still 3 gigawatts. According to Infoplease the largest plant in the US is Palo Verde 2, Ariz. which has a capacity of 1,335 megawatts. It took more than a decade for Palo Verde 1 and 12 years for Palo Verde 3 to go online, it doesn't say how long Palo Verde 2 took.
They are also already decided : they oppose nuclear fusion, if and when it becomes available.
If true I think Greenpeace is wrong. In general I think fusion may provide much of our energy, however I'd like to see a life cycle analysis when it does become feasible.
Also greenpeace ignores massive co2 exhaust where it is politically inconvenient : ever looked at a wind turbine ? Every last square millimeter you see is reprocessed oil. On the inside, tons of components are made with oil, and the remainder, the steel supports, are made by burning coal (that's how cast iron is still made, coal is just too cheap and convenient. Everywhere you mine iron you will find coal deposits on top of it, between it, ...)
The same applies to nuclear power, even more so. Nuclear power plants require massive amounts of concrete and steel, which requires massive amounts of coal to burn.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes, if they can get some actual science done.
A blind man could see in a minute that there's something going on with the atmosphere. We have all kinds of anecdotal evidence that temperatures are warming. We don't need any more suppositions as to the cause of this trend.
What we desperately need are scientific facts, not predictions based on mathematical models. We've seen what using unsound mathematical models can do in the financial sector. We know from historical records that just within the last thousand years it has been both warmer and cooler than it is now. We need a rigorously tested model that can account for what we already know. The model that generated the famous 'hockey stick' need not apply.
One other thing that would be valuable is a worldwide sensor network to get some rigorously defined temperature data. What we have now is a hodgepodge of airport readings surrounded by asphalt, land grant university instruments in rural locations, and various other methods and locations that don't give us an accurate picture.
In short, if politics and activism can be kept out of a nascent climate service, we might actually learn something useful. We, and by we I mean Americans, need to tackle this problem without bankrupting ourselves. We need to know the facts, and to how many decimal places.
I think the answer to this is a qualified "yes." Climate data analysis is tough - it takes a long time to collect, coordinate, validate, calibrate - and ulimately analyze - climate data. And that's just to tell WHAT is happening, WHY is even harder. One of the things that the National Academies and the Government Accountability Office have found is that there isn't a "home" for climate, so efforts take place in a million different uncoordinated (Read: disorganized) places. If nothing else, the House hearing highlighted that fact. NOAA may not be the best place for a National Climate Office/Service, but they do already have the National Climate Data Center - and at least have the infastruture and operational (not R&D) enviornment to continue the studies. I'm glad a national effort is being discussed - if nothing else it would be good (and hopefully save us all some money) to group some of the climate-studying stovepipes together.
I guess there is no room for scientists to have a say? They must be whack-jobs too. How the hell was this modded up to insightful? Total flamebait.
Yes the road to hell is paved with good intentions but is self-interest a good or bad thing?
If self interest is focused on the long term it is good, but as bank officers as shown focusing on the short term can be bad, very bad. One way to correct this though is to delay bonuses and other incentives. Instead of rewarding "good performances" with bonuses this year or next, reward them say 5 or 10 years down the road.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Capitalism tries to externalize (and therefore ignore) all costs.
No, that's corporatism and the Corporate Aristocracy Thomas Jefferson warned of when he said "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Um, can I ask you a small favor?
Are you adequate?
environment
2. Ignoring know safe energy production of nuclear
Safe nuclear power? Maybe but it's not clean. And businesses won't spend money on it unless they receive massive subsidies. Not even France has profitable nuclear power without subsidies.
Sorry, the government does more damage
You're right here. In the US, as I'm pretty sure is the same in other nations, the government is the biggest polluter.
The preponderance of evidence against many forms of man made global warming is building faster than support for it.
Where's your source? It's not online but the American Geological Institute's "Earth" magazine published an article in it's November 2008 issue titled "Climate Skeptics in Retreat". Science is proving the skeptics wrong, but they just use the bait and switch tactic.
They are going to create a new government bureaucracy where we already have more than one which does the same job.
Unfortunately I have this fear you're right. We already have 2 bureaucracies that could do this, plus a third that does some of it too, why create another one?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
So until a year ago, they hadn't factored in something that occurred in 1997/8.
They do now, it's skeptics who use it to deny the world getting warmer. It goes like this, including 1997/8 when there was an eruption which lowered temperatures temperarily the averge is lowered. When that year isn't included though there is a demonstrable warming trend.
Of course it's all part of the Bait and Switch tactics of deniers who will use anything and everything they can to discredit climate change.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
as long as Al Gore can make a mint with his carbon-credit trading house scheme
I've asked this before, how is Al Gore making a lot of money off of carbon? That is other than the fact he is a large stockholder of Oxy, Oxidental Petroleum? If nobody answers this then the only conclusion I can come up with is it is all FUD!
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The problem with Nuclear energy in this country is that it has been demonized - Look at the media reaction to TMI
The problem with nuclear power is that it is dirty; it takes years to build, the last power plant that went online took more than 20 years to build; and private businesses and people, Wall Street; will not pay for it without massive subsidies from the government. Not even libertarian free market institutes say that without these subsidies nuclear power plants will be built.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
So, if C/T imposes an additional cost of, say, $500/year for someone making 110% of the poverty level, give everyone $500/year from the permit auction revenues.
About a month I read an article in a magazine that proposed something like it but on gas. They called it a net zero tax. Ah here is it, in the "Conservative" "The Weekly Standard". Instead of mandating federal fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, it proposes to raise fuel taxes instead. So that the average person does not pay more taxes it would reduce income tax instead. If because of the increase in fuel tax the person paid $100 more for gas a month they would get a $100 cut in income tax for the month. This could then encourage people to drive less and or to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You know why I say that? your number is off by a magnitude of 10 when compared to all other numbers I've seen.
How about this one, it basically agrees.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Same here.
I still believe we should have some sort of disability program, but people with health issues like obesity (lung cancer for smokers) should not be able to receive aid.
For smokers, which I am, and other life style choices that raise the cost of medical insurance their insurance premium can be adjusted higher. Because I smoke I am willing to pay more for insurance. However for life style choices that lower costs, premiums should be lowered as well. Even though I smoke I used to lead an active life style. Until an accident that left me with a disability I rode my bike up to 200 miles a week, I had the accident while riding. I ran a few miles or more a few days a week. I swam and dove, and I practiced martial arts.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
we've been there, done that and wound up in the great depression because of it.
No, we didn't have a libertarian government which caused the Great Depression. If we had had a libertarian government we would not have had Prohibition. The 18th Amendment, which prohibited alcohol, was ratified on 16 January 1920. The Great Depression started in October 1929. It was only during it that the 21st Admendment was ratified, on 5 December 1933.
And it was protectionist laws like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that made it worse and last longer than it would have otherwise. That most definitely in not libertarian.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes technically it was mercantilism or something similiar to that - but Libertarianism is effective the same thing as the platform of the Libertarian Party, if it were implemented, would let corporations run ramshod all over everyobdy else.
Judging from seeing your posts I doubt you entirely get along with the official Libertarian party all the time.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
At the beginning of the depression government intervention did worsen it, because of wrong-headed libertarian/laissez-faire policies
Those government interventions is neither libertarian nor laissez-faire. Do you know what the difference is? Under libertarianism and laissez-faire there is no government intervention.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
However you want to try to cut it we've TRIED libertarianism before. It doesn't work. It cannot work in a modern society.
And when was this? The latest the US has come close to libertarianism was when Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in 1831. It has gone downhill since, with corporations gaining more and more power.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
However you want to try to cut it we've TRIED libertarianism before. It doesn't work. It cannot work in a modern society.
And when was this? The latest the US has come close to libertarianism was when Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in 1831. It has gone downhill since, with corporations gaining more and more power among other things.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
However you want to try to cut it we've TRIED libertarianism before. It doesn't work. It cannot work in a modern society.
And when was this? The latest the US has come close to libertarianism was when Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in 1831. It has gone downhill since, with corporations gaining more and more power among other things.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
However you want to try to cut it we've TRIED libertarianism before. It doesn't work. It cannot work in a modern society.
And when was this? The latest the US has come close to libertarianism was when Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in 1831. It has gone downhill since, with corporations gaining more and more power among other things.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Will this office be staffed only by people who drank the koolaid and can prove it? Can a skeptic work there and not be tagged as an anti-science denier?
We should call it The Ministry of Sunshine.
Carrying the rest of the country economically? bullshit
Economist Bernard "Bud" Weinstein probably would agree. He says "North Texas Best Place to Be in Recession". Now if I recall right, from threads yesterday and the day before we've conversed in, you think Obama is doing the right thing. Well so does "Bud". He "believes the steps are headed in the right direction." Further, "He believes North Texas will fare better than most of the country, as the area's economy was strong as it headed into the global recession. People already were reported to be flocking to the region from all over the United States, especially from California and Michigan, with the surge expected to increase once the economy improves later this year or in early 2010."
Now I don't agree, or disagree, but your bullshit statement caused me to look it up so I found that article.
Middle ranking? is 49th a middle ranking as that was the last ranking I heard for Texas [last few years]
You're still right, Texas is near the bottom in education. However New Hampshire, the state for the libertarian Free State Project, is ranked number 1 by at least one calculation. It looks like New Hampshire high school students also score higher on the SAT than average.
Libertarians and Republicans might have their differences but they tend to vote together, are cut from the same cloth
I started out as a democrat, though not registered. The first tyme I voted I voted for Jimmy Carter. I don't recall who I voted for in '84 but then in '88 I voted for Ron Paul on the Libertarian ticket. During the 2004 campaign there were some Libertarians for Howard Dean. And in 2008 there was a debate on who would be better, or less bad, McCain or Obama. I think I told you before, but I may be wrong, I voted for Obama myself. So while the Libertarian Party was started by people who left the Republican Party not all are or vote for Republicans.
My problem with Texas is that a whole bunch of stupid radiates from that state every year and is mucking up the country I live in and Love.
I sometimes feel the same about both Democrats and Republicans.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes technically it was mercantilism or something similiar to that - but Libertarianism is effective the same thing as the platform of the Libertarian Party, if it were implemented, would let corporations run ramshod all over everyobdy else.
If this is what you believe you don't know what the Libertarian Party, or libertarians, stand for. For instance they are and were opposed to all the bailouts. Ask a libertarian, big "L" or small, if the banks should have been bailed out and almost all would say no. Here, I'll make is easy for you with a search of the LP website for bank bailout.
And on corporations, here's what the LP says about Corporate Welfare. One libertarian writer says this: "Corporations are pure-bred progeny of Leviathan."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
i didn't say the attempts at intervention were, the decades that led to the conditions that facilitated it were.
The US did not have libertarian/laissez-faire policies fr decades before the Great Depression. In 1890 Teddy Roosevelt, the Trust Buster, signed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. With the ratification of Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights, ratified in 1868, corporations started their push for corporate personhood. After the Civil War there was no libertarian or laissez-faire policies. And government got bigger and bigger.
I'd answer basically the same for this post.
Oh, the third reply is the same as your second. I had the same thing happen to me yesterday. I tried to submit a reply but got a 503 error. I then tried two more tymes. When I went online today I saw my post was posted 3 tymes.
Overall the US has not had libertarian or laissez-faire policies since before the Civil War, but I think I just repeated that.
Now I do believe government can have a place in business and economics but not what and how it's doing it now. Government's place would be to make sure there's a level playing field. Otherwise it should stay out.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I doubt very much opinions in America are different from opinions here. Young people overhere don't feel like paying for the mistakes their 'elders' made and i don't see why they should care about anything other than what consequense it is to them personally either. dam' hippies ... fourty years later they still fuck up this place
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?