Here is a energy issue that is not being discussed and i think we should
consider.
And that's along with the plastic (credit) bomb senerio which i just forward
to you..
The American 'true romance'...The car! the ever newer, shiner and more
bizarrely luxurious as well as powerful automobile.
Now to keep our wonder machines mobile it takes fuel and as fuel prices
increase and we are being told that we have not experienced anything so
far... that's when the crunch will be felt. Crude is just below $95 today
and is expected to hit a hundred before the New Year.
Can the American driver afford another dollar on the pump price?
That's a question that is frequently asked.
And lets assume after all adjustments are made by the drivers that are
possible in this a shrinking economy that the strain is still unmanageable.
What will happen then?
Before you answer that also consider the public who drive have also maxed
the plastic and the mortgage payment has reset by a few percentile..up!
Something has to give as the whole society can't go postal..we'll not all at
once! I think it would be only polite to sign up so we can take our turn.
And of course at that time we could pick the category we feel we would like
to be expressive in.
Anyway...
I'm sure you are getting it. It's the car payment that will have to go along
with the operating expense. This is not one of those burning issues like WMD
in Iraq or where ever we are told to turn our head toward. And so that we
don't look at what we are not suppose to see...our own national survival.
And is stem cell research what the general public needs to discuss or make
decisions on? Seems to me that's a good one for the scientist to at least
give a go at. Simplistic? So is the family shelter which it seems we are
having even less input on.
The car is the needle in our arm which keeps the juice flowing and the bread
going towards our gullet.
So right, it's soon going to be: Dump the buggy month and coming up in a
garage near you. If we can't gas it we can't drive it and we can't pay for
it or won't pay for it to sit in the street until some former neighbor who
has recently been evicted moves in or uses it for the a dog kennel.
What does this mean? This no down and pay for five deal is now functioning
similar to the unsecured plastic debt. Neither the plastic has anything that
can be redeemed nor will the family shinny steed. Who is going to buy one of
the millions of soon to be repo cars which they also will not be able to
afford to drive?
Now that's national debt big time. The plastic debt usually has had
significant pay back so the losses on debt default have been diminished by
the additional fees paid as well as the high interest rate on unsecured debt
really cuts the principle debt way down for the credit companies.
Car loans have a much lower interest rate and the security (resale value) is
always diminishing from the car dealers lot.
In this case their will be no demand and hence no value as resale.
And of course i presented this in a broad manner. People will respond with
what they individually may have to deal with. But using the guzzler as a
trade in for lets say a Hybrid will only happen as long as the dealer is
able to dispose of the trade in within the retail market. And we are
describing a sudden change in market demand for vehicles.
The Smart for two vehicle which is not yet available has even so taken
39,000 deposits here in the land of bigger is better. It's cute but i don't
much improvement as to mpg. Somewhere between 30 and 40 mpg is what I'm
reading. And the cost is ten to sixteen grand.Ouch!
So i would think if Peak Oil puts the squeeze on the finance end of the
family wheels then the system will actually seize up. It's the 'perfect
storm' syndrome.
The projected scenarios have the electrical grid failing first in a peak oil
crisis. And which is totally out of our realm to intervene.
Maybe we will be allowed to all make a contribution to bring the now
strained but functioning system to a stand still if we all have to trash our
wheels and then have to walk to the soup line.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
What Would It Take to Send the U.S. Economy Into Free Fall? - Money 2007 -- New York Magazine
http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=What+Would+It+Take+to+Send+the+U.S.+Economy+Into+Free+Fall%3F+-+Money+2007+--+New+York+Magazine&expire=&urlID=24648989&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fguides%2Fmoney%2F2007%2F39952%2F&partner
The bottom line...which means...what's it going to cost? Is the recent
Merrill Lynch 7.9 billion dollar crunch which will include thousands of jobs
lost by ML employees.
They are stating here that this could result in a 40,000 job loss in the NYC
financial sector and indirectly 100,000 in the city.
Their maybe millions living in the city but these are some of the real high
end pay check jobs in the financial sector.
The article starts off by asking the question what would it take to push the
economy over the cliff? Though they seem to be saying: It's already over the
cliff it's just that when we are in free fall you will never hear the splat
that's coming .....since we are the splat.
Crude closed up @$95 today
Pump price locally is up @$3.27 for regular
Gold up @$795 per oz.
The dollar is down against the currency basket @ 76.50 which is an enormous
drop in value against the worlds currencies. The dollar is/was considered
the world reserve currency and had been holding at 80 or better.... for
months.
So when Sec of Treasury Paulson tells us he is "supporting a strong dollar."
Then what has been happening recently must indicate he is now vacationing on
the moon.
Have you noticed all the wonders of high tech finance have not come up with
a solution as to how to put the tooth paste back in the tube?
Is their a reason for me sending this article and my dismal comments and
conclusion?
Yes, you may want to seek financial shelter as the great leader himself is
not about to come on the Boob tube too inform us: "Houston we seem to have
problem."
And also the dear leader along with Mom, Dad and clan recently bought a
100,000 acres in Paraguay which may seem god forsaken but it does have
water, food and security.... from the likes of us.
The bottom line...which means...what's it going to cost? Is the recent
Merrill Lynch 7.9 billion dollar crunch which will include thousands of jobs
lost by ML employees.
They are stating here that this could result in a 40,000 job loss in the NYC
financial sector and indirectly 100,000 in the city.
Their maybe millions living in the city but these are some of the real high
end pay check jobs in the financial sector.
The article starts off by asking the question what would it take to push the
economy over the cliff? Though they seem to be saying: It's already over the
cliff it's just that when we are in free fall you will never hear the splat
that's coming .....since we are the splat.
Crude closed up @$95 today
Pump price locally is up @$3.27 for regular
Gold up @$795 per oz.
The dollar is down against the currency basket @ 76.50 which is an enormous
drop in value against the worlds currencies. The dollar is/was considered
the world reserve currency and had been holding at 80 or better.... for
months.
So when Sec of Treasury Paulson tells us he is "supporting a strong dollar."
Then what has been happening recently must indicate he is now vacationing on
the moon.
Have you noticed all the wonders of high tech finance have not come up with
a solution as to how to put the tooth paste back in the tube?
Is their a reason for me sending this article and my dismal comments and
conclusion?
Yes, you may want to seek financial shelter as the great leader himself is
not about to come on the Boob tube too inform us: "Houston we seem to have
problem."
And also the dear leader along with Mom, Dad and clan recently bought a
100,000 acres in Paraguay which may seem god forsaken but it does have
water, food and security.... from the likes of us.
Clearing the air on climate change - The Boston Globe
This story broke last week but this detailed comparison is important as it
again shows the administration is indifferent to the publics welfare while
as usual they are saying "We don't want to alarm the public so the less they
know the better off 'they' are." And you could translate that as: Don't
scare the sheep and besides sheep are dumb so what's the diff?
This played very well on Fox media news broadcasts and the right wing talk
shows. As the basic story line being used their is global warming effects or
climate change implications are not really happening as this is just a
cyclical climate phenomena.
You doubt this? try tuning in for a tune up.
And also we are told those scientific groups coming out with these possible
scenarios are controlled by liberals who are fuzzy thinkers. They fail to
mention the few people they quote are all getting large grants from the
oil/coal corporations.
I sometimes am told all this by another dog walker who also assures me peak
oil is a myth which allows the oil companies to charge more.
It seems the oil companies have lots of really good wells which they have
capped for the future.
Also, that the crude oil in the earth is unlimited and their is no problem.
Global warming apparently is also a myth being used by tree huggers to scare
people and the economic crash we seem to be going into is also contrived.
Though i am not sure by who. As to his source for all this economic and
scientific knowledge. Fox talk show luminaries or so he tells me.
He sometimes also gets our national enemies confused though they sure aren't
white male and middle age and which seems to be about the only people who
aren't potential terrorist or drug fiends. Yes, he does take Rx drugs for
his heart and he is concerned about Diabetes. As this also came out in our
one way conversations.
The guy drives seventy miles a day so he is constantly learning allot of new
wisdom from endless radio talk shows.
I try and be a good listener but even so I know i am suspect and he is
waiting for me to confirm his suspicions. I mentioned i was not to up on
corporate sport teams so he also knows I'm backing a looser.
Also his dog has my sympathy as she has to ride with him and then listen to
Rush and company.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/30/the_climate_change_censor/
again shows the administration is indifferent to the publics welfare while
as usual they are saying "We don't want to alarm the public so the less they
know the better off 'they' are." And you could translate that as: Don't
scare the sheep and besides sheep are dumb so what's the diff?
This played very well on Fox media news broadcasts and the right wing talk
shows. As the basic story line being used their is global warming effects or
climate change implications are not really happening as this is just a
cyclical climate phenomena.
You doubt this? try tuning in for a tune up.
And also we are told those scientific groups coming out with these possible
scenarios are controlled by liberals who are fuzzy thinkers. They fail to
mention the few people they quote are all getting large grants from the
oil/coal corporations.
I sometimes am told all this by another dog walker who also assures me peak
oil is a myth which allows the oil companies to charge more.
It seems the oil companies have lots of really good wells which they have
capped for the future.
Also, that the crude oil in the earth is unlimited and their is no problem.
Global warming apparently is also a myth being used by tree huggers to scare
people and the economic crash we seem to be going into is also contrived.
Though i am not sure by who. As to his source for all this economic and
scientific knowledge. Fox talk show luminaries or so he tells me.
He sometimes also gets our national enemies confused though they sure aren't
white male and middle age and which seems to be about the only people who
aren't potential terrorist or drug fiends. Yes, he does take Rx drugs for
his heart and he is concerned about Diabetes. As this also came out in our
one way conversations.
The guy drives seventy miles a day so he is constantly learning allot of new
wisdom from endless radio talk shows.
I try and be a good listener but even so I know i am suspect and he is
waiting for me to confirm his suspicions. I mentioned i was not to up on
corporate sport teams so he also knows I'm backing a looser.
Also his dog has my sympathy as she has to ride with him and then listen to
Rush and company.
http://www.boston.com/news
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
earthquake was a shaker!
their was a 5 plus earthquake around 8:30 PM and which was centered on the
Hayward fault near Menlo Park. That magnitude is not confirmed.
Was definitely felt even here in Santa Cruz which is one mountain range away
as well as about 40 miles or more in distance.
But as to damage i don't think it was serious as i have heard no sirens.
Though it did last for about 10 seconds and enough to prompt me to move to
the doorway.
Hayward fault near Menlo Park. That magnitude is not confirmed.
Was definitely felt even here in Santa Cruz which is one mountain range away
as well as about 40 miles or more in distance.
But as to damage i don't think it was serious as i have heard no sirens.
Though it did last for about 10 seconds and enough to prompt me to move to
the doorway.
Amazon.com: The Day of the Triffids: DVD: John Duttine,Emma Relph,Maurice Colbourne,Eva Griffiths,David Swift,Christina Schofield,Donald Pelmear,Desmo
For the select few.
The BBC version which was produced in 1981 by the Brits and the Aussies and
then shown in three parts is finally being re-released in the U.S and which
will have the suitable U.S. DVD formatting.
The American Hollywood film version of this Wyndham fifties novel was
released in the early sixties and was total trash though still available.
http://www.amazon.com/Day-Triffids-John-Duttine/dp/B000TSTEO6/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8318207-7695341?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1193754706&sr=1-1
What's the significance? The Triffids novel has all the threads of a
suddenly collapsing society and which we may soon be confronted with as Peak
Oil becomes apparent.
Or if you prefer: Climate Change issues or both.
The Norman Church: Oil/energy/Food essay that i recently sent you describes
some of these issues without the dramatization. Especially the energy food
connection. It was also very well done.
Also the accompanying articles describing the collapse of both N.Korea and
Cuba's economy are timely and significant for all of us.
It is very difficult to convince people if they are living in the horn of
plenty as we all are that this situation could soon change significantly and
awareness is our only effective response.
The BBC version which was produced in 1981 by the Brits and the Aussies and
then shown in three parts is finally being re-released in the U.S and which
will have the suitable U.S. DVD formatting.
The American Hollywood film version of this Wyndham fifties novel was
released in the early sixties and was total trash though still available.
http://www.amazon.com/Day
What's the significance? The Triffids novel has all the threads of a
suddenly collapsing society and which we may soon be confronted with as Peak
Oil becomes apparent.
Or if you prefer: Climate Change issues or both.
The Norman Church: Oil/energy/Food essay that i recently sent you describes
some of these issues without the dramatization. Especially the energy food
connection. It was also very well done.
Also the accompanying articles describing the collapse of both N.Korea and
Cuba's economy are timely and significant for all of us.
It is very difficult to convince people if they are living in the horn of
plenty as we all are that this situation could soon change significantly and
awareness is our only effective response.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Why Our Food Is So Dependent on Oil
Norman Church's the author is a very knowledgeable British environmentalist.
His article is the fourth in this: From the Wilderness, series.
It's not meant to be read in one sitting. And since we all would like to
continue to eat. some knowledge in this area on how it works and soon may
not maybe helpful.
For those who are interest in the food growing/energy issue Norman has
simplified it with his orderly style.
Also he has limited it to the British isles which for descriptive
illustration is helpful.
Similar papers for the United States tend to become scattered since the
nation is so large and with the same complexity.
The conclusion and it always seems to be the same... what we are doing to
grow food or obtain food from distance sources can not be sustained. And is
completely environmentally destructive while it is continuing to happen.
This also could be seen as a peak oil issue essay as they are so related.
Pass it on!
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:2QJbacbRjwQJ:www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/040605_world_stories.shtml+systems+and+interdependencies+norman+church&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=uk
His article is the fourth in this: From the Wilderness, series.
It's not meant to be read in one sitting. And since we all would like to
continue to eat. some knowledge in this area on how it works and soon may
not maybe helpful.
For those who are interest in the food growing/energy issue Norman has
simplified it with his orderly style.
Also he has limited it to the British isles which for descriptive
illustration is helpful.
Similar papers for the United States tend to become scattered since the
nation is so large and with the same complexity.
The conclusion and it always seems to be the same... what we are doing to
grow food or obtain food from distance sources can not be sustained. And is
completely environmentally destructive while it is continuing to happen.
This also could be seen as a peak oil issue essay as they are so related.
Pass it on!
http://66.102.9.104/search?q
Fw: Emailing: are-we-heading-for-another-great-crash
if you have a problem opening just transfer the site address and go direct to money week.
What i found interesting was money week is saying in so many words..short the mkt.
From: A Friend of Larry's
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to: http://www.moneyweek.com/file/36959/are-we-heading-for-another-great-crash.html
From: A Friend of Larry's
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to: http://www.moneyweek.com/file
Sunday, October 28, 2007
AlterNet: War on Iraq: White House Leak: Cheney's Plan for Iran Attack Starts With Israeli Missile Strike
What the Germans are saying.
Also this article doesn't mention the recent statements by the Russians and
the Chinese. Which was: Don't do it.
And though it is 'over there' where the action will take place... if it
does.
With the U.S strategic oil reserves depleted some folks may have to push
their SUV's rather than driving.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/66157/
Also this article doesn't mention the recent statements by the Russians and
the Chinese. Which was: Don't do it.
And though it is 'over there' where the action will take place... if it
does.
With the U.S strategic oil reserves depleted some folks may have to push
their SUV's rather than driving.
http://www.alternet.org
SF Gate News by Subject
I will let you choose the state environmental subject of interest.
But i found the 'Delta's Endgame' to be informative and if you read the
implications you will note the battle lines are drawn.
My conclusion is S.California with 23 million residents as well significant
industry and military installations has won the first few rounds. The
governor and the Republicans in the legislature which are from the valley
also favor the all water for the south concept aswell.
So let the 'war games' begin.
Does that mean the environmentalist and the residence in the north of the
state and which is an over simplification of who will get the short end on
this issue?
When it comes to the vote on the water bond issue @9.5 billion dollars that
or the cheapo 5.5 billion alternative will pass.
But the matter will be settled because of a different reason. Their is no
snow in the mountains. Their is less and less water in Lake Mead or the
Colorado river. And it doesn't rain much in S.California.
And desalinization is limited as a source for water even if we had the fuel
for the distillation process involved.
Bottom line. Water supply diminishing as demand increases.
And for us living in the golden state this is the first issue of importance.
Who will get the water the north or the south. That's of course if their is
any water to get.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/qws/srch/catlist?p=all&subjcode=ENV&paper=chronicle&Submit=Sort
But i found the 'Delta's Endgame' to be informative and if you read the
implications you will note the battle lines are drawn.
My conclusion is S.California with 23 million residents as well significant
industry and military installations has won the first few rounds. The
governor and the Republicans in the legislature which are from the valley
also favor the all water for the south concept aswell.
So let the 'war games' begin.
Does that mean the environmentalist and the residence in the north of the
state and which is an over simplification of who will get the short end on
this issue?
When it comes to the vote on the water bond issue @9.5 billion dollars that
or the cheapo 5.5 billion alternative will pass.
But the matter will be settled because of a different reason. Their is no
snow in the mountains. Their is less and less water in Lake Mead or the
Colorado river. And it doesn't rain much in S.California.
And desalinization is limited as a source for water even if we had the fuel
for the distillation process involved.
Bottom line. Water supply diminishing as demand increases.
And for us living in the golden state this is the first issue of importance.
Who will get the water the north or the south. That's of course if their is
any water to get.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Oil Drum
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3064#more
The attached in-depth article from TOD is analyzing where crude (C&C) oil demand/supply and price are going and how soon.
About the only item they have left out is a projection for..... world..... population increase. But if we draw a line ascending at a 45 degree incline we will still be conservative.
And the world population are not aware of how special and deserving all of the western white Christians are. And they especially don't believe we should be getting 25% of the worlds energy at their expense. And that's not even with the aid of our Crusader guns.
The first graph chart has a line projecting crude price for a few years ahead and it is beyond the possibility for any country to absorb and maintain their existing standard of living. And especially a country or empire such as this one which has burnt it's own resources and reserved wealth while pursuing the short sighted conquest of the oil producers in the middle east.
And yes, their is a name for this future oil issue. Peak Oil which translates to actually mean the world supply of crude oil is now diminishing while the world demand is significantly increasing along with the world population.
And for the industrial world it is disaster plus. And just to stir the pot sixty percent of today's crude production is concentrated in the middle east.
And they know it along with who has what, who needs what and for how much.
The American public maybe intentionally uninformed but those who have oil are not. So basking in the fluorescent lights of the local Mall maybe a thing of the past for Mr. and Mrs. Waddle USA.
In the comments section following the article it is pointed out that we will not be driving large personal vehicles in 2011. Really!
I believe it will be far more serious than that in three to four years.
Try on... being hot when it's hot and cold when it's cold. Fuel converted to electricity is what creates a temperate ambient temperature.
And no coal, sand or shale crude or the others such as solar, wind and wave will take up the slack. And now that some of us see an energy crunch coming we again have the glow of a crush on nuclear.
But don't count on instant nukes as that is not for ten to fifteen years and down a very bumpy road.
I still see this as far more than just energy issues.
It will be food production, transportation and the national electrical grid along with social unrest which are some of the issues most of us don't give allot of thought too.
What are the options?
Their is only one positive option and it is not SERIOUSLY being considered. It's energy conservation. The nation would have to go to a 'war time' regime which would require leadership and direction as well as a redirection of labor and resources.
This administration or for that matter neither political party have any intention of broaching that subject.
They both get their funding from the corporations and the national banks who are not in the business of serving the nation or the people.
And maybe before that we would also need to have a feeling of national impending crisis far more than the concern that's just dawning that we might have a really big financial crisis in the very near future.
Unfortunately, the neo cons have other plans for us and the middle east. The citizens of the U.S. are really considered as foreign nationals by the neo cons. They have moved on and nolonger care what we think or do as they have an international plan which doesnt need our support.
Am i implying martial law? We'll what else is going to keep us under control in a bankrupt nation that will soon be going energy dysfunctional?
Did someone say Blackwater? I will agree on that one. Their is allot more going on with Blackwater and Graystone than has come out. They are the intended force that will be used to control the u.s. population when they declare marshal law.
An ultra right "Christian" led mercenary group. Graystone is an out front Mercenaries organization also owned by Prince. Blackwater states they offer security for a price. Graystone is offering repression for a price.
it's and actual military force responsible only to them selves.
Try searching Blackwater on Amazon if you have doubts. And the TV monitored tactics we saw used after Katrina is not in the plan.
And for anyone having doubts about that I suggest they awake from their nap and smell the blood.
The attached in-depth article from TOD is analyzing where crude (C&C) oil demand/supply and price are going and how soon.
About the only item they have left out is a projection for..... world..... population increase. But if we draw a line ascending at a 45 degree incline we will still be conservative.
And the world population are not aware of how special and deserving all of the western white Christians are. And they especially don't believe we should be getting 25% of the worlds energy at their expense. And that's not even with the aid of our Crusader guns.
The first graph chart has a line projecting crude price for a few years ahead and it is beyond the possibility for any country to absorb and maintain their existing standard of living. And especially a country or empire such as this one which has burnt it's own resources and reserved wealth while pursuing the short sighted conquest of the oil producers in the middle east.
And yes, their is a name for this future oil issue. Peak Oil which translates to actually mean the world supply of crude oil is now diminishing while the world demand is significantly increasing along with the world population.
And for the industrial world it is disaster plus. And just to stir the pot sixty percent of today's crude production is concentrated in the middle east.
And they know it along with who has what, who needs what and for how much.
The American public maybe intentionally uninformed but those who have oil are not. So basking in the fluorescent lights of the local Mall maybe a thing of the past for Mr. and Mrs. Waddle USA.
In the comments section following the article it is pointed out that we will not be driving large personal vehicles in 2011. Really!
I believe it will be far more serious than that in three to four years.
Try on... being hot when it's hot and cold when it's cold. Fuel converted to electricity is what creates a temperate ambient temperature.
And no coal, sand or shale crude or the others such as solar, wind and wave will take up the slack. And now that some of us see an energy crunch coming we again have the glow of a crush on nuclear.
But don't count on instant nukes as that is not for ten to fifteen years and down a very bumpy road.
I still see this as far more than just energy issues.
It will be food production, transportation and the national electrical grid along with social unrest which are some of the issues most of us don't give allot of thought too.
What are the options?
Their is only one positive option and it is not SERIOUSLY being considered. It's energy conservation. The nation would have to go to a 'war time' regime which would require leadership and direction as well as a redirection of labor and resources.
This administration or for that matter neither political party have any intention of broaching that subject.
They both get their funding from the corporations and the national banks who are not in the business of serving the nation or the people.
And maybe before that we would also need to have a feeling of national impending crisis far more than the concern that's just dawning that we might have a really big financial crisis in the very near future.
Unfortunately, the neo cons have other plans for us and the middle east. The citizens of the U.S. are really considered as foreign nationals by the neo cons. They have moved on and nolonger care what we think or do as they have an international plan which doesnt need our support.
Am i implying martial law? We'll what else is going to keep us under control in a bankrupt nation that will soon be going energy dysfunctional?
Did someone say Blackwater? I will agree on that one. Their is allot more going on with Blackwater and Graystone than has come out. They are the intended force that will be used to control the u.s. population when they declare marshal law.
An ultra right "Christian" led mercenary group. Graystone is an out front Mercenaries organization also owned by Prince. Blackwater states they offer security for a price. Graystone is offering repression for a price.
it's and actual military force responsible only to them selves.
Try searching Blackwater on Amazon if you have doubts. And the TV monitored tactics we saw used after Katrina is not in the plan.
And for anyone having doubts about that I suggest they awake from their nap and smell the blood.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
CA Climate
Regarding California climate.
For the few who might be interested... and i don't mean to sound cynical but talking with people the response is generally 'we have had lots of droughts in the past but then it eventually rains.' And one response that stands out included the remark: "The scientist are not in agreement about what is happening."
Sorry, they are in agreement on climate change if we read... any... of the science journals.
Also, that was one of Gore's major points. This is now a world wide crisis that's been confirmed by earth scientist from all over the world.
The glaciers and both polls are melting and now we are experiencing the same world water scarcity issues in California.
What makes this of immediate seriousness in California is this is the water for most of the 30 million people in this state.
And then the state is also seen as a bread basket for the nation.
The state government is very aware of this but their attitude is don't frighten the sheep. As the state has no answer either.
So we all wait ...while looking up.
Charlie is located @ 4000 ft in the Sierra's and south of Yosemite. Their is no snow pack of any significance from last season.
And the Sierra's is where the water comes from for most of the state other than the aquifer which is also slowly replenished by water from the mountains.
Rain also contributes to the aquifer water level.
The S.E. of the nation is now in serious drought. The S.W. is also in drought. The southern part of California is actually a semi desert which takes it's water from the north. And the northern part of the state gets that water from the Sierra's. And pumps it through a ditch and then pipes it to the lawns and golf courses in never, never land where 23 million people also happen to live.
Though the San Joaquin valley gets moocho replenishment for the valley cotton crop acreage. But that's another scandal we don't talk about.
What will be the response? Nine and half billion $$$ in a state bond measure for new reservoirs and desalinization facilities is being proposed. And the state is on it's own as their will be no federal funds as help.
It seems we can't fight oil wars and take care of business at home as well.
And all Empires have put conquest and expansion above domestic issues.
Will that water bond measure resolve the problem? I will say: No!
What will be the effective response? Migration is what people have done in the past.
You can see that as dark humor or delusion but bottle water will not make a solution.
Technology and concentrated energy (coal and oil) has given us the illusion that something basically has changed in our relationship with the earth. That we are in charge and we can do what we want where ever we want.
But it seems the earth has it's own concerns and we are not included as a priority in it's response to it's global surface stress.
In fact the earth may not be aware we are the leading primate. And that we are considered the Alfa of the mammals. And also that we don't believe we have to be in rhythm with the earth. And looking at it all that way and which we do... the earth is our cupcake.
But then from the cupcakes perspective we are just fruit flies. And swat is the current response.
Though maybe with all of these cell phones we can dial up big mama and complain about this inconvenience. Infact maybe that's what all those folks talking while driving are already doing.
I'm sorry, they offend as well as scare me. Especially since my dog and I drive a Autorickshaw around town. And one good mind-less nudge and we will both be buried together.
And of course i also hope these stated water concerns are all proved wrong.
And we all have a white Christmas. But then if we don't some warning seems prudent.
For the few who might be interested... and i don't mean to sound cynical but talking with people the response is generally 'we have had lots of droughts in the past but then it eventually rains.' And one response that stands out included the remark: "The scientist are not in agreement about what is happening."
Sorry, they are in agreement on climate change if we read... any... of the science journals.
Also, that was one of Gore's major points. This is now a world wide crisis that's been confirmed by earth scientist from all over the world.
The glaciers and both polls are melting and now we are experiencing the same world water scarcity issues in California.
What makes this of immediate seriousness in California is this is the water for most of the 30 million people in this state.
And then the state is also seen as a bread basket for the nation.
The state government is very aware of this but their attitude is don't frighten the sheep. As the state has no answer either.
So we all wait ...while looking up.
Charlie is located @ 4000 ft in the Sierra's and south of Yosemite. Their is no snow pack of any significance from last season.
And the Sierra's is where the water comes from for most of the state other than the aquifer which is also slowly replenished by water from the mountains.
Rain also contributes to the aquifer water level.
The S.E. of the nation is now in serious drought. The S.W. is also in drought. The southern part of California is actually a semi desert which takes it's water from the north. And the northern part of the state gets that water from the Sierra's. And pumps it through a ditch and then pipes it to the lawns and golf courses in never, never land where 23 million people also happen to live.
Though the San Joaquin valley gets moocho replenishment for the valley cotton crop acreage. But that's another scandal we don't talk about.
What will be the response? Nine and half billion $$$ in a state bond measure for new reservoirs and desalinization facilities is being proposed. And the state is on it's own as their will be no federal funds as help.
It seems we can't fight oil wars and take care of business at home as well.
And all Empires have put conquest and expansion above domestic issues.
Will that water bond measure resolve the problem? I will say: No!
What will be the effective response? Migration is what people have done in the past.
You can see that as dark humor or delusion but bottle water will not make a solution.
Technology and concentrated energy (coal and oil) has given us the illusion that something basically has changed in our relationship with the earth. That we are in charge and we can do what we want where ever we want.
But it seems the earth has it's own concerns and we are not included as a priority in it's response to it's global surface stress.
In fact the earth may not be aware we are the leading primate. And that we are considered the Alfa of the mammals. And also that we don't believe we have to be in rhythm with the earth. And looking at it all that way and which we do... the earth is our cupcake.
But then from the cupcakes perspective we are just fruit flies. And swat is the current response.
Though maybe with all of these cell phones we can dial up big mama and complain about this inconvenience. Infact maybe that's what all those folks talking while driving are already doing.
I'm sorry, they offend as well as scare me. Especially since my dog and I drive a Autorickshaw around town. And one good mind-less nudge and we will both be buried together.
And of course i also hope these stated water concerns are all proved wrong.
And we all have a white Christmas. But then if we don't some warning seems prudent.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
U.S. Economy
Book review of a significant book by an insider in the Republican
inner-circle.
Though what puzzles me about all of these after the fact and i wasn't one of
them type revelations is why do they bother?
They are not redeemed for their errors which apparently they where aware of
even while they where part of the organization which has done significant
economic damage to the nation.
And of course as he states stuffed the pockets of the rich while taking the
food out of the children's mouths.
Maybe Paul O'Neil came out better than most as he fought them while he was
Secretary of Treasury.
----- Original Message -----
From: olcharlie
To: larrylewis
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 7:34 PM
Subject: u.s. economy
Crackpot E-Con 101
Jim Newsom
http://portfolioweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=9124C0D293884358A5BBECEB9CC3FB78
The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got
Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics by
Jonathan Chait
Alan Greenspan's memoir/confessional, The Age of
Turbulence, has been getting all the publishing
headlines lately, zooming up to the top spot on
bestseller lists while the author makes the rounds of
TV chat-em-ups. And it certainly has been interesting
to hear the former Fed chief vent about the Bush
administration's out of control tax-cut-and-spend
economic policy which he helped to enable.
But another book that came out the same week is
actually more noteworthy in its analysis of the
Republican economic revolution of the last three
decades. The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington
Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics was
written by Jonathan Chait, a senior editor at The New
Republic. In it, he examines the astonishing rise of
"supply side" economics (aka "trickle down") that has
driven GOP policies since the Reagan ascendancy,
reaching its apex during the six-years-and-counting run
of the Bush II administration.
I remember well Ronald Reagan's embrace of the whacky
theory that cutting taxes on the wealthy would
magically produce higher incomes for all and greater
revenues for the government. You may recall Poppy
Bush's succinct analysis when he was running against
the Gipper for the 1980 Republican presidential
nomination: he called it "voodoo economics." He was
right, but he abandoned his own wise judgment when he
accepted the vice presidential nomination that fall.
Ever heard of David Stockman? He was Reagan's Director
of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981-1985,
a vocal proponent and implementer of supply side
economics who later wrote his own memoir admitting that
the whole thing was just a "Trojan horse" to cut taxes
on the wealthy and to intentionally run up the budget
deficit as an excuse to cut domestic social programs.
Those of us old enough to have been around in the early
'80s should know these things. But what Chait does in
his book is trace the story back to its beginnings and
follow the disastrous consequences through to today.
Interestingly enough, Dick Cheney has been involved
from the start.
Arther Laffer was the inventor of the supply side
doctrine through his concept of the "Laffer Curve." An
economist who had lost his job with the Office of
Management and Budget because of his unconventional
methods, he promulgated the idea that higher taxes led
to less tax revenue because people had no reason to
earn more income if they would have to pay higher taxes
on that income. Though recent history had already
proven this to be incorrect, Wall Street Journal
editorial writer Jude Wanniski latched onto the
concept, and in 1974, the two met with President
Ford's assistant Dick Cheney. Chait notes that
"Cheney apparently found the Laffer Curve a revelation,
for it presented in a simple, easily digestible form
the messianic power of tax cuts."
We know what subsequently transpired: the Republican
Party, previously known for its conservative economic
policies and its concern with deficits, inflation and
excessive spending ("they were quite willing to raise
taxes in order to balance the budget") rapidly devolved
into a party whose central economic mantra is "tax cut,
tax cut, tax cut." The political party that spent the
1960s and '70s railing against "Democratic deficits"
became the party of record-breaking budget imbalances.
After he became Vice President, Cheney famously
declared "deficits don't matter."
The Big Con reminds those who may have forgotten of the
reality of American economic history since World War
II:
"From 1947 to 1973, the U. S. economy grew at a rate of
nearly 4 percent a year--a massive boom, fueling rapid
growth in living standards across the board. During
most of that period, from 1947 until 1964, the highest
tax rate hovered around 91 percent. For the rest of the
time, it was still a hefty 70 percent. Yet the economy
flourished anyway."
The first batch of Reagan tax cuts in 1981 cut the top
tax rate to 50 percent, and the second batch in 1986
took it down to 28 percent. (Poppy Bush pushed it up to
31 percent in '91). It doesn't take an economics
Ph.D. to see what has happened since 1981--the gap
between the super rich and everyone else has exploded,
the middle class has shrunk, and real income for
working people has stagnated or declined.
Jonathan Chait boldly states the premise of his book up
front. "American politics has been hijacked," he
writes, "by a tiny coterie of right-wing economic
extremists, some of them ideological zealots, others
merely greedy, a few of them possibly insane."
Incendiary language, yes, but hardly an overstatement.
As the Bush years wind down to a thankful close, it is
important to keep in mind that not all terrorists use
bombs and airplanes.
As Woody Guthrie sang during the Great Depression,
"Some will rob you with a six-gun; and some with a
fountain pen."
inner-circle.
Though what puzzles me about all of these after the fact and i wasn't one of
them type revelations is why do they bother?
They are not redeemed for their errors which apparently they where aware of
even while they where part of the organization which has done significant
economic damage to the nation.
And of course as he states stuffed the pockets of the rich while taking the
food out of the children's mouths.
Maybe Paul O'Neil came out better than most as he fought them while he was
Secretary of Treasury.
----- Original Message -----
From: olcharlie
To: larrylewis
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 7:34 PM
Subject: u.s. economy
Crackpot E-Con 101
Jim Newsom
http://portfolioweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=9124C0D293884358A5BBECEB9CC3FB78
The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got
Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics by
Jonathan Chait
Alan Greenspan's memoir/confessional, The Age of
Turbulence, has been getting all the publishing
headlines lately, zooming up to the top spot on
bestseller lists while the author makes the rounds of
TV chat-em-ups. And it certainly has been interesting
to hear the former Fed chief vent about the Bush
administration's out of control tax-cut-and-spend
economic policy which he helped to enable.
But another book that came out the same week is
actually more noteworthy in its analysis of the
Republican economic revolution of the last three
decades. The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington
Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics was
written by Jonathan Chait, a senior editor at The New
Republic. In it, he examines the astonishing rise of
"supply side" economics (aka "trickle down") that has
driven GOP policies since the Reagan ascendancy,
reaching its apex during the six-years-and-counting run
of the Bush II administration.
I remember well Ronald Reagan's embrace of the whacky
theory that cutting taxes on the wealthy would
magically produce higher incomes for all and greater
revenues for the government. You may recall Poppy
Bush's succinct analysis when he was running against
the Gipper for the 1980 Republican presidential
nomination: he called it "voodoo economics." He was
right, but he abandoned his own wise judgment when he
accepted the vice presidential nomination that fall.
Ever heard of David Stockman? He was Reagan's Director
of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981-1985,
a vocal proponent and implementer of supply side
economics who later wrote his own memoir admitting that
the whole thing was just a "Trojan horse" to cut taxes
on the wealthy and to intentionally run up the budget
deficit as an excuse to cut domestic social programs.
Those of us old enough to have been around in the early
'80s should know these things. But what Chait does in
his book is trace the story back to its beginnings and
follow the disastrous consequences through to today.
Interestingly enough, Dick Cheney has been involved
from the start.
Arther Laffer was the inventor of the supply side
doctrine through his concept of the "Laffer Curve." An
economist who had lost his job with the Office of
Management and Budget because of his unconventional
methods, he promulgated the idea that higher taxes led
to less tax revenue because people had no reason to
earn more income if they would have to pay higher taxes
on that income. Though recent history had already
proven this to be incorrect, Wall Street Journal
editorial writer Jude Wanniski latched onto the
concept, and in 1974, the two met with President
Ford's assistant Dick Cheney. Chait notes that
"Cheney apparently found the Laffer Curve a revelation,
for it presented in a simple, easily digestible form
the messianic power of tax cuts."
We know what subsequently transpired: the Republican
Party, previously known for its conservative economic
policies and its concern with deficits, inflation and
excessive spending ("they were quite willing to raise
taxes in order to balance the budget") rapidly devolved
into a party whose central economic mantra is "tax cut,
tax cut, tax cut." The political party that spent the
1960s and '70s railing against "Democratic deficits"
became the party of record-breaking budget imbalances.
After he became Vice President, Cheney famously
declared "deficits don't matter."
The Big Con reminds those who may have forgotten of the
reality of American economic history since World War
II:
"From 1947 to 1973, the U. S. economy grew at a rate of
nearly 4 percent a year--a massive boom, fueling rapid
growth in living standards across the board. During
most of that period, from 1947 until 1964, the highest
tax rate hovered around 91 percent. For the rest of the
time, it was still a hefty 70 percent. Yet the economy
flourished anyway."
The first batch of Reagan tax cuts in 1981 cut the top
tax rate to 50 percent, and the second batch in 1986
took it down to 28 percent. (Poppy Bush pushed it up to
31 percent in '91). It doesn't take an economics
Ph.D. to see what has happened since 1981--the gap
between the super rich and everyone else has exploded,
the middle class has shrunk, and real income for
working people has stagnated or declined.
Jonathan Chait boldly states the premise of his book up
front. "American politics has been hijacked," he
writes, "by a tiny coterie of right-wing economic
extremists, some of them ideological zealots, others
merely greedy, a few of them possibly insane."
Incendiary language, yes, but hardly an overstatement.
As the Bush years wind down to a thankful close, it is
important to keep in mind that not all terrorists use
bombs and airplanes.
As Woody Guthrie sang during the Great Depression,
"Some will rob you with a six-gun; and some with a
fountain pen."
US Bank Panic of '07 and Mexican Depression of '08
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?
a=o&d=5001364195
I am seeing a comparison of our own economic banking situation to that of
the depression or bank panic of 1907 and which spilled over into Mexico.
All I know regarding this one was my father who was 23 at the time referred
to it as very hard times.
It was also a year after the 06 S.F. earthquake. Which was actually called:
the Great Fire by my parents who both lived in S.F. (Frisco) at the time.
And yes, it was called Frisco until Herb Caen the newspaper columnist
taught us it wasn't a nice term.
And of course the people who run the finacial world today as well as
ourselves are both allot smart than those folks back then.
And of course power and personal greed are also under the category of
history.
And i hope you find those last observation reassuring as we go forward.
Maybe we are living a horse opera and didn't know it.
In fact our own good ole boy the 'decision maker' made the following remark
at today's press conference that "this wasn't his first Rodeo." So you see
we can count on a seasoned (in the saddle) leader if anything comes up...
serious like.
a=o&d=5001364195
I am seeing a comparison of our own economic banking situation to that of
the depression or bank panic of 1907 and which spilled over into Mexico.
All I know regarding this one was my father who was 23 at the time referred
to it as very hard times.
It was also a year after the 06 S.F. earthquake. Which was actually called:
the Great Fire by my parents who both lived in S.F. (Frisco) at the time.
And yes, it was called Frisco until Herb Caen the newspaper columnist
taught us it wasn't a nice term.
And of course the people who run the finacial world today as well as
ourselves are both allot smart than those folks back then.
And of course power and personal greed are also under the category of
history.
And i hope you find those last observation reassuring as we go forward.
Maybe we are living a horse opera and didn't know it.
In fact our own good ole boy the 'decision maker' made the following remark
at today's press conference that "this wasn't his first Rodeo." So you see
we can count on a seasoned (in the saddle) leader if anything comes up...
serious like.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Drought in the South
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/us/16drought.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
this is no secret as the 'water sites' have been all over it for some time.
But now the NY Times is reporting it so it's official.
I will speculate this drought will be experienced as more of a crop crisis
than lack of water for the lawns of America.
Also, we are under the impression that Climate Change has finally been
acknowledge by the government as happening. And that they are responding.
They aren't and don't plan too if you are reading the White House
statements.
Though congressional committees are moving that way they are opposed by the
Neo-cons. Climate Change we are being told is a liberal illusion. It'd
really just a climate cycle being miss named.
Those areas in the nation which still have plentiful water resources are
seeing the 'thirsty' migrants arrive.
And those area which have the water resources to continue to grow food crops
will be the next bubble for investment.
this is no secret as the 'water sites' have been all over it for some time.
But now the NY Times is reporting it so it's official.
I will speculate this drought will be experienced as more of a crop crisis
than lack of water for the lawns of America.
Also, we are under the impression that Climate Change has finally been
acknowledge by the government as happening. And that they are responding.
They aren't and don't plan too if you are reading the White House
statements.
Though congressional committees are moving that way they are opposed by the
Neo-cons. Climate Change we are being told is a liberal illusion. It'd
really just a climate cycle being miss named.
Those areas in the nation which still have plentiful water resources are
seeing the 'thirsty' migrants arrive.
And those area which have the water resources to continue to grow food crops
will be the next bubble for investment.
Reagan Quote about George W?
From: John Law
"A moment I've been dreading. George(Bush senior) brought his
ne're-do-well son(George W Bush, our president...)around this morning and
asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one (Jeb) who lives in
Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This
so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll
call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a
contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."
-- Ronald Reagan, from his recently published diaries.
"A moment I've been dreading. George(Bush senior) brought his
ne're-do-well son(George W Bush, our president...)around this morning and
asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one (Jeb) who lives in
Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This
so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll
call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a
contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."
-- Ronald Reagan, from his recently published diaries.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Worse Than We Thought
From: olcharlie
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 5:31 PM
Subject: worse than we thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 5:31 PM
Subject: worse than we thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Newsweek Article on Global Warming Deniers
Follow the money!
Newsweek Chronicles Relentless History of Climate Deniers
Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine
Newsweek Magazine, Aug 13, 2007
Aug. 13, 2007 issue - Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies.
Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."
If you think those who have long challenged the mainstream scientific findings about global warming recognize that the game is over, think again. Yes, 19 million people watched the "Live Earth" concerts last month, titans of corporate America are calling for laws mandating greenhouse cuts, "green" magazines fill newsstands, and the film based on Al Gore's best-selling book, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Oscar. But outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion.
Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."
Just last year, polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was "a lot" of scientific disagreement on climate change; only one third thought planetary warming was "mainly caused by things people do." In contrast, majorities in Europe and Japan recognize a broad consensus among climate experts that greenhouse gases mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas to power the world's economies are altering climate. A new NEWSWEEK Poll finds that the influence of the denial machine remains strong. Although the figure is less than in earlier polls, 39 percent of those asked say there is "a lot of disagreement among climate scientists" on the basic question of whether the planet is warming; 42 percent say there is a lot of disagreement that human activities are a major cause of global warming. Only 46 percent say the greenhouse effect is being felt today.
As a result of the undermining of the science, all the recent talk about addressing climate change has produced little in the way of actual action. Yes, last September Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a landmark law committing California to reduce statewide emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent more by 2050. And this year both Minnesota and New Jersey passed laws requiring their states to reduce greenhouse emissions 80 percent below recent levels by 2050. In January, nine leading corporations including Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Du Pont and General Electric called on Congress to "enact strong national legislation" to reduce greenhouse gases. But although at least eight bills to require reductions in greenhouse gases have been introduced in Congress, their fate is decidedly murky. The Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives decided last week not even to bring to a vote a requirement that automakers improve vehicle mileage, an obvious step toward reducing greenhouse emissions. Nor has there been much public pressure to do so. Instead, every time the scientific case got stronger, "the American public yawned and bought bigger cars," Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey congressman and physicist, recently wrote in the journal Science; politicians "shrugged, said there is too much doubt among scientists, and did nothing."
It was 98 degrees in Washington on Thursday, June 23, 1988, and climate change was bursting into public consciousness. The Amazon was burning, wildfires raged in the United States, crops in the Midwest were scorched and it was shaping up to be the hottest year on record worldwide. A Senate committee, including Gore, had invited NASA climatologist James Hansen to testify about the greenhouse effect, and the members were not above a little stagecraft. The night before, staffers had opened windows in the hearing room. When Hansen began his testimony, the air conditioning was struggling, and sweat dotted his brow. It was the perfect image for the revelation to come. He was 99 percent sure, Hansen told the panel, that "the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now."
The reaction from industries most responsible for greenhouse emissions was immediate. "As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began," says historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego. Individual companies and industry associations representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, for instance formed lobbying groups with names like the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. ICE's game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," and to sow doubt about climate research just as cigarette makers had about smoking research. ICE ads asked, "If the earth is getting warmer, why is Minneapolis [or Kentucky, or some other site] getting colder?" This sounded what would become a recurring theme for naysayers: that global temperature data are flat-out wrong. For one thing, they argued, the data reflect urbanization (many temperature stations are in or near cities), not true global warming.
Shaping public opinion was only one goal of the industry groups, for soon after Hansen's sweat-drenched testimony they faced a more tangible threat: international proposals to address global warming. The United Nations had scheduled an "Earth Summit" for 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, and climate change was high on an agenda that included saving endangered species and rain forests. ICE and the Global Climate Coalition lobbied hard against a global treaty to curb greenhouse gases, and were joined by a central cog in the denial machine: the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank. Barely two months before Rio, it released a study concluding that models of the greenhouse effect had "substantially exaggerated its importance." The small amount of global warming that might be occurring, it argued, actually reflected a simple fact: the Sun is putting out more energy. The idea of a "variable Sun" has remained a constant in the naysayers' arsenal to this day, even though the tiny increase in solar output over recent decades falls far short of explaining the extent or details of the observed warming.
In what would become a key tactic of the denial machine think tanks linking up with like-minded, contrarian researchers the report was endorsed in a letter to President George H.W. Bush by MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. Lindzen, whose parents had fled Hitler's Germany, is described by old friends as the kind of man who, if you're in the minority, opts to be with you. "I thought it was important to make it clear that the science was at an early and primitive stage and that there was little basis for consensus and much reason for skepticism," he told Scientific American magazine. "I did feel a moral obligation."
Bush was torn. The head of his Environmental Protection Agency, William Reilly, supported binding cuts in greenhouse emissions. Political advisers insisted on nothing more than voluntary cuts. Bush's chief of staff, John Sununu, had a Ph.D. in engineering from MIT and "knew computers," recalls Reilly. Sununu frequently logged on to a computer model of climate, Reilly says, and "vigorously critiqued" its assumptions and projections.
Sununu's side won. The Rio treaty called for countries to voluntarily stabilize their greenhouse emissions by returning them to 1990 levels by 2000. (As it turned out, U.S. emissions in 2000 were 14 percent higher than in 1990.) Avoiding mandatory cuts was a huge victory for industry. But Rio was also a setback for climate contrarians, says UCSD's Oreskes: "It was one thing when Al Gore said there's global warming, but quite another when George Bush signed a convention saying so." And the doubters faced a newly powerful nemesis. Just months after he signed the Rio pact, Bush lost to Bill Clinton whose vice president, Gore, had made climate change his signature issue.
Groups that opposed greenhouse curbs ramped up. They "settled on the 'science isn't there' argument because they didn't believe they'd be able to convince the public to do nothing if climate change were real," says David Goldston, who served as Republican chief of staff for the House of Representatives science committee until 2006.
Industry found a friend in Patrick Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia who keeps a small farm where he raises prize-winning pumpkins and whose favorite weather, he once told a reporter, is "anything severe." Michaels had written several popular articles on climate change, including an op-ed in The Washington Post in 1989 warning of "apocalyptic environmentalism," which he called "the most popular new religion to come along since Marxism." The coal industry's Western Fuels Association paid Michaels to produce a newsletter called World Climate Report, which has regularly trashed mainstream climate science. (At a 1995 hearing in Minnesota on coal-fired power plants, Michaels admitted that he received more than $165,000 from industry; he now declines to comment on his industry funding, asking, "What is this, a hatchet job?")
The road from Rio led to an international meeting in Kyoto, Japan, where more than 100 nations would negotiate a treaty on making Rio's voluntary and largely ignored greenhouse curbs mandatory. The coal and oil industries, worried that Kyoto could lead to binding greenhouse cuts that would imperil their profits, ramped up their message that there was too much scientific uncertainty to justify any such cuts. There was just one little problem. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC the international body that periodically assesses climate research had just issued its second report, and the conclusion of its 2,500 scientists looked devastating for greenhouse doubters. Although both natural swings and changes in the Sun's output might be contributing to climate change, it concluded, "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate."
Faced with this emerging consensus, the denial machine hardly blinked. There is too much "scientific uncertainty" to justify curbs on greenhouse emissions, William O'Keefe, then a vice president of the American Petroleum Institute and leader of the Global Climate Coalition, suggested in 1996. Virginia's Michaels echoed that idea in a 1997 op-ed in The Washington Post, describing "a growing contingent of scientists who are increasingly unhappy with the glib forecasts of gloom and doom." To reinforce the appearance of uncertainty and disagreement, the denial machine churned out white papers and "studies" (not empirical research, but critiques of others' work). The Marshall Institute, for instance, issued reports by a Harvard University astrophysicist it supported pointing to satellite data showing "no significant warming" of the atmosphere, contrary to the surface warming. The predicted warming, she wrote, "simply isn't happening according to the satellite[s]." At the time, there was a legitimate case that satellites were more accurate than ground stations, which might be skewed by the unusual warmth of cities where many are sited.
"There was an extraordinary campaign by the denial machine to find and hire scientists to sow dissent and make it appear that the research community was deeply divided," says Dan Becker of the Sierra Club. Those recruits blitzed the media. Driven by notions of fairness and objectivity, the press "qualified every mention of human influence on climate change with 'some scientists believe,' where the reality is that the vast preponderance of scientific opinion accepts that human-caused [greenhouse] emissions are contributing to warming," says Reilly, the former EPA chief. "The pursuit of balance has not done justice" to the science. Talk radio goes further, with Rush Limbaugh telling listeners this year that "more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not likely to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. It's just all part of the hoax." In the new NEWSWEEK Poll, 42 percent said the press "exaggerates the threat of climate change."
Now naysayers tried a new tactic: lists and petitions meant to portray science as hopelessly divided. Just before Kyoto, S. Fred Singer released the "Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change." Singer, who fled Nazi-occupied Austria as a boy, had run the U.S. weather-satellite program in the early 1960s. In the Leipzig petition, just over 100 scientists and others, including TV weathermen, said they "cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes." Unfortunately, few of the Leipzig signers actually did climate research; they just kibitzed about other people's. Scientific truth is not decided by majority vote, of course (ask Galileo), but the number of researchers whose empirical studies find that the world is warming and that human activity is partly responsible numbered in the thousands even then. The IPCC report issued this year, for instance, was written by more than 800 climate researchers and vetted by 2,500 scientists from 130 nations.
Although Clinton did not even try to get the Senate to ratify the Kyoto treaty (he knew a hopeless cause when he saw one), industry was taking no chances. In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty. The plan was to train up to 20 "respected climate scientists" on media and public outreach with the aim of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom' " and, in particular, "the Kyoto treaty's scientific underpinnings" so that elected officials "will seek to prevent progress toward implementation." The plan, once exposed in the press, "was never implemented as policy," says Marshall's William O'Keefe, who was then at API.
The GOP control of Congress for six of Clinton's eight years in office meant the denial machine had a receptive audience. Although Republicans such as Sens. John McCain, Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee spurned the denial camp, and Democrats such as Congressman John Dingell adamantly oppose greenhouse curbs that might hurt the auto and other industries, for the most part climate change has been a bitterly partisan issue. Republicans have also received significantly more campaign cash from the energy and other industries that dispute climate science. Every proposed climate bill "ran into a buzz saw of denialism," says Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change, a research and advocacy group, who was a Senate staffer at the time. "There was no rational debate in Congress on climate change."
The reason for the inaction was clear. "The questioning of the science made it to the Hill through senators who parroted reports funded by the American Petroleum Institute and other advocacy groups whose entire purpose was to confuse people on the science of global warming," says Sen. John Kerry. "There would be ads challenging the science right around the time we were trying to pass legislation. It was pure, raw pressure combined with false facts." Nor were states stepping where Washington feared to tread. "I did a lot of testifying before state legislatures in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Alaska that thought about taking action," says Singer. "I said that the observed warming was and would be much, much less than climate models calculated, and therefore nothing to worry about."
But the science was shifting under the denial machine. In January 2000, the National Academy of Sciences skewered its strongest argument. Contrary to the claim that satellites finding no warming are right and ground stations showing warming are wrong, it turns out that the satellites are off. (Basically, engineers failed to properly correct for changes in their orbit.) The planet is indeed warming, and at a rate since 1980 much greater than in the past.
Just months after the Academy report, Singer told a Senate panel that "the Earth's atmosphere is not warming and fears about human-induced storms, sea-level rise and other disasters are misplaced." And as studies fingering humans as a cause of climate change piled up, he had a new argument: a cabal was silencing good scientists who disagreed with the "alarmist" reports. "Global warming has become an article of faith for many, with its own theology and orthodoxy," Singer wrote in The Washington Times. "Its believers are quite fearful of any scientific dissent."
With the Inauguration of George W. Bush in 2001, the denial machine expected to have friends in the White House. But despite Bush's oil-patch roots, naysayers weren't sure they could count on him: as a candidate, he had pledged to cap carbon dioxide emissions. Just weeks into his term, the Competitive Enterprise Institute heard rumors that the draft of a speech Bush was preparing included a passage reiterating that pledge. CEI's Myron Ebell called conservative pundit Robert Novak, who had booked Bush's EPA chief, Christie Todd Whitman, on CNN's "Crossfire." He asked her about the line, and within hours the possibility of a carbon cap was the talk of the Beltway. "We alerted anyone we thought could have influence and get the line, if it was in the speech, out," says CEI president Fred Smith, who counts this as another notch in CEI's belt. The White House declines to comment.
Bush not only disavowed his campaign pledge. In March, he withdrew from the Kyoto treaty. After the about-face, MIT's Lindzen told NEWSWEEK in 2001, he was summoned to the White House. He told Bush he'd done the right thing. Even if you accept the doomsday forecasts, Lindzen said, Kyoto would hardly touch the rise in temperatures. The treaty, he said, would "do nothing, at great expense."
Bush's reversal came just weeks after the IPCC released its third assessment of the burgeoning studies of climate change. Its conclusion: the 1990s were very likely the warmest decade on record, and recent climate change is partly "attributable to human activities." The weather itself seemed to be conspiring against the skeptics. The early years of the new millennium were setting heat records. The summer of 2003 was especially brutal, with a heat wave in Europe killing tens of thousands of people. Consultant Frank Luntz, who had been instrumental in the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994, suggested a solution to the PR mess. In a memo to his GOP clients, he advised them that to deal with global warming, "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue." They should "challenge the science," he wrote, by "recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view." Although few of the experts did empirical research of their own (MIT's Lindzen was an exception), the public didn't notice. To most civilians, a scientist is a scientist.
Challenging the science wasn't a hard sell on Capitol Hill. "In the House, the leadership generally viewed it as impermissible to go along with anything that would even imply that climate change was genuine," says Goldston, the former Republican staffer. "There was a belief on the part of many members that the science was fraudulent, even a Democratic fantasy. A lot of the information they got was from conservative think tanks and industry." When in 2003 the Senate called for a national strategy to cut greenhouse gases, for instance, climate naysayers were "giving briefings and talking to staff," says Goldston. "There was a constant flow of information largely misinformation." Since the House version of that bill included no climate provisions, the two had to be reconciled. "The House leadership staff basically said, 'You know we're not going to accept this,' and [Senate staffers] said, 'Yeah, we know,' and the whole thing disappeared relatively jovially without much notice," says Goldston. "It was such a foregone conclusion."
Especially when the denial machine had a new friend in a powerful place. In 2003 James Inhofe of Oklahoma took over as chairman of the environment committee. That summer he took to the Senate floor and, in a two-hour speech, disputed the claim of scientific consensus on climate change. Despite the discovery that satellite data showing no warming were wrong, he argued that "satellites, widely considered the most accurate measure of global temperatures, have confirmed" the absence of atmospheric warming. Might global warming, he asked, be "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?" Inhofe made his mark holding hearing after hearing to suggest that the answer is yes. For one, on a study finding a dramatic increase in global temperatures unprecedented in the last 1,000 years, he invited a scientist who challenged that conclusion (in a study partly underwritten with $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute), one other doubter and the scientist who concluded that recent global temperatures were spiking. Just as Luntz had suggested, the witness table presented a tableau of scientific disagreement.
Every effort to pass climate legislation during the George W. Bush years was stopped in its tracks. When Senators McCain and Joe Lieberman were fishing for votes for their bipartisan effort in 2003, a staff member for Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska explained to her counterpart in Lieberman's office that Stevens "is aware there is warming in Alaska, but he's not sure how much it's caused by human activity or natural cycles," recalls Tim Profeta, now director of an environmental-policy institute at Duke University. "I was hearing the basic argument of the skeptics a brilliant strategy to go after the science. And it was working." Stevens voted against the bill, which failed 43-55. When the bill came up again the next year, "we were contacted by a lot of lobbyists from API and Exxon-Mobil," says Mark Helmke, the climate aide to GOP Sen. Richard Lugar. "They'd bring up how the science wasn't certain, how there were a lot of skeptics out there." It went down to defeat again.
Killing bills in Congress was only one prong of the denial machine's campaign. It also had to keep public opinion from demanding action on greenhouse emissions, and that meant careful management of what federal scientists and officials wrote and said. "If they presented the science honestly, it would have brought public pressure for action," says Rick Piltz, who joined the federal Climate Science Program in 1995. By appointing former coal and oil lobbyists to key jobs overseeing climate policy, he found, the administration made sure that didn't happen. Following the playbook laid out at the 1998 meeting at the American Petroleum Institute, officials made sure that every report and speech cast climate science as dodgy, uncertain, controversial and therefore no basis for making policy. Ex-oil lobbyist Philip Cooney, working for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as "lack of understanding" and "considerable uncertainty." A short section on climate in another report was cut entirely. The White House "directed us to remove all mentions of it," says Piltz, who resigned in protest. An oil lobbyist faxed Cooney, "You are doing a great job."
The response to the international climate panel's latest report, in February, showed that greenhouse doubters have a lot of fight left in them. In addition to offering $10,000 to scientists willing to attack the report, which so angered Boxer, they are emphasizing a new theme. Even if the world is warming now, and even if that warming is due in part to the greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels, there's nothing to worry about. As Lindzen wrote in a guest editorial in NEWSWEEK International in April, "There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe."
To some extent, greenhouse denial is now running on automatic pilot. "Some members of Congress have completely internalized this," says Pew's Roy, and therefore need no coaching from the think tanks and contrarian scientists who for 20 years kept them stoked with arguments. At a hearing last month on the Kyoto treaty, GOP Congressman Dana Rohrabacher asked whether "changes in the Earth's temperature in the past all of these glaciers moving back and forth and the changes that we see now" might be "a natural occurrence." (Hundreds of studies have ruled that out.) "I think it's a bit grandiose for us to believe ... that [human activities are] going to change some major climate cycle that's going on." Inhofe has told allies he will filibuster any climate bill that mandates greenhouse cuts.
Still, like a great beast that has been wounded, the denial machine is not what it once was. In the NEWSWEEK Poll, 38 percent of those surveyed identified climate change as the nation's gravest environmental threat, three times the number in 2000. After ExxonMobil was chastised by senators for giving $19 million over the years to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others who are "producing very questionable data" on climate change, as Sen. Jay Rockefeller said, the company has cut back its support for such groups. In June, a spokesman said ExxonMobil did not doubt the risks posed by climate change, telling reporters, "We're very much not a denier." In yet another shock, Bush announced at the weekend that he would convene a global-warming summit next month, with a 2008 goal of cutting greenhouse emissions. That astonished the remaining naysayers. "I just can't imagine the administration would look to mandatory [emissions caps] after what we had with Kyoto," said a GOP Senate staffer, who did not want to be named criticizing the president. "I mean, what a disaster!"
With its change of heart, ExxonMobil is more likely to win a place at the negotiating table as Congress debates climate legislation. That will be crucially important to industry especially in 2009, when naysayers may no longer be able to count on a friend in the White House nixing man-datory greenhouse curbs. All the Democratic presidential contenders have called global warming a real threat, and promise to push for cuts similar to those being passed by California and other states. In the GOP field, only McCain long a leader on the issue supports that policy. Fred Thompson belittles findings that human activities are changing the climate, and Rudy Giuliani backs the all-volunteer greenhouse curbs of (both) Presidents Bush.
Look for the next round of debate to center on what Americans are willing to pay and do to stave off the worst of global warming. So far the answer seems to be, not much. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds less than half in favor of requiring high-mileage cars or energy-efficient appliances and buildings. No amount of white papers, reports and studies is likely to change that. If anything can, it will be the climate itself. This summer, Texas was hit by exactly the kind of downpours and flooding expected in a greenhouse world, and Las Vegas and other cities broiled in record triple-digit temperatures. Just last week the most accurate study to date concluded that the length of heat waves in Europe has doubled, and their frequency nearly tripled, in the past century. The frequency of Atlantic hurricanes has already doubled in the last century. Snowpack whose water is crucial to both cities and farms is diminishing. It's enough to make you wish that climate change were a hoax, rather than the reality it is.
With Eve Conant, Sam Stein and Eleanor Clift in Washington and Matthew Philips in New York
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)