Monday October 19, 2009, 7:29 pm



Thnx Tierney hun!!!

Monday October 19, 2009, 8:58 pm
Thank you Tierney.

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 2:19 am
thanks tierney signed

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 7:19 am
Only too pleased to join in on this one. We so desperately need a shift away from this polluting energy sources we now use. Clean energy and clean jobs.

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 8:28 am
Happy to sign. Thanks, Tierney.

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 9:13 am
Thank you for sending a message to your Senators asking them to support the Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act and defend it against Big Oil and Coal. Thanks Tierney!

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 10:21 am
CLEAN ENERGY JOBS & AMERICAN POWER ACT
Let's Defend, Improve, and Pass It!
Thank you for sending a message to your Senators asking them to support the Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act and defend it against Big Oil and Coal

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 10:29 am
Let me see. Coal - over half our electricity. Solar and wind, might be feasible fro homes in a few years if new technology pans out. (Currently, only Hawaii is so expensive solar has recently achieved parity.)

But this is residential. California averages about a kilowatt per home, North Dakota about three kilowatss per home.

When you consider commercial - the factories, stores, businesses, malls -everything, solar and wind are not enough. Commercial uses many times the power.

Petroleum - that's a different story. Transportation. A car uses around fifty to sixty kilowatts, and it goes up from there. Trucks and buses use perhaps three hundred kilowatts, trains, ships and aircraft use maybe ten or more times more.

Are there alternatives? Solar is still too costly.

I suppose spending money on new technology is a good idea. At the worst, you have provided employment for jobs that are not government waste. At the best, new technology might make solar and wind affordable.


What else can we do? Last year Americans began riding bicycles to work. Electric bicyles are sctually faster than cars in cities in China (because of traffic jams.) Electric bicycles use around three to four hundred watts - about half a horsepower - making them a good investment.

By all means, this is money well-spent.

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 11:05 am
Thank you for sending a message to your Senators asking them to support the Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act and defend it against Big Oil and Coal.

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 12:30 pm
You are being lied to about everything.

It’s time to reexamine far-fetched claims that drive US energy and global warming policy

Climate assumptions from another planet
by
Roy Innis is national chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality. Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for CORE and the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow They can be reached at: pkdriessen@gmail.com
Excerpt:
The Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Information Administration and other optimistic analysts claim America can limit and tax hydrocarbon use, and switch to “ecologically friendly” renewable energy, with minimal harm to families, businesses and jobs. Their low-ball cost estimates are based on assumptions that can only have come from another planet:
These EPA and EIA assumptions are naively optimistic at best

* We will overcome decades of fear, resistance, lawsuits and over-regulation, and double US nuclear power in just 25 years.
* Workable, affordable technologies will suddenly materialize to remove billions of tons of carbon dioxide from emission streams and store it underground – and won’t run into buzz saw of NIMBY and eco litigation.
* Renewable energy will generate abundant, reliable, affordable electricity that can replace hydrocarbons, power our economy and easily be integrated into the grid.
* There will be no lawsuits or opposition over hundreds of thousands of giant wind turbines across habitats and scenic areas; hundreds of square miles of solar panels in the desert Southwest; thousands of miles of new transmission lines; millions of dead birds and bats; and mining and drilling to provide hundreds of millions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass, rare earth elements and plastic film for all those eco-friendly renewable facilities.
* Millions of “green jobs” will be created by mandated, subsidized renewable energy. The jobs won’t be just lawyers, regulators, cap-and-trade dealers, and wind and solar system installers. And the green jobs will exceed the millions of manufacturing jobs that cap-tax-and-trade will destroy.
* Many manufacturers, utility companies and refiners won’t have to buy increasingly expensive CO2 permits, because they can purchase “carbon offsets” from developing countries, whose leaders will gladly accept cash to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and forego jobs, prosperity and mobility for their people, by not building more factories, power plants and cars.
* Major developing countries like China, India, Brazil and Indonesia will slash their own CO2 emissions and economic growth by 20-50% by 2050 – so that carbon dioxide reductions achieved by American families and businesses will not be overwhelmed by skyrocketing emissions overseas.

These EPA and EIA assumptions are naively optimistic at best, and delusional at worst. They should certainly not serve as a foundation for setting energy and climate change policy, especially when global warming science itself is coming under increasing criticism for errors, exaggerations, fabrications, “cherry-picked” and “lost” data, and computer modeling that reflects neither observations nor reality.

Pending legislation (and EPA “endangerment” rulings) would hit Americans with “climate crisis prevention” programs that cost trillions of dollars – prolonging our recession and near-double-digit unemployment. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) wasn’t exaggerating when he called cap-and-tax “the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time.”

Applying much more realistic assumptions, CRA Associates, American Council for Capital Formation and other analysts have calculated that Waxman-Markey would reduce US gross domestic product by a cumulative $9.4 trillion by 2035. Emission permit costs for energy users could exceed $300 billion per year by 2035.

Average households could pay 58% more for gasoline, 90% more for electricity, the Heritage Center for Data Analysis calculated. A typical family of four could pay $829 more annually just for electricity, and up to $4,600 for energy, food and consumer goods, say Heritage, CRA and other analysts.

This is not wealth creation. It is a massive wealth transfer – from hydrocarbon users to carbon traders, non-hydrocarbon energy industries, bureaucrats, activists and other preferred groups. Poor families could get “energy welfare” payments, to offset some added costs, but small businesses and middle class families would get hammered.

Over 85% of America’s black population lives within a 700-mile radius of Nashville, Tennessee, notes the National Black Chamber of Commerce. This region depends heavily on oil, natural gas and coal for electricity and transportation fuels. Hardest hit will be manufacturing industries that provide numerous minority and middle class jobs."

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 2:45 pm
Those of us who understand the basics and more of science are not being lied to. It's hard to lie to well-educated and/or well-informed people about much of anything. I understand the science and therefore can assess the data and evaluate sources of information myself.

People who do not understand the basics of science are susceptible to propaganda; people who stubbornly maintain their ignorance in order to preserve their comfort level and provide justification (for lifestyle, for mindsets, for fear of change, and many other things) are not only very susceptible to propaganda, but they also work hard to spread the propaganda because they are not comfortable with their lack of understanding and need numbers to make them feel better about their point of view.

No one can lie to me. I know that we no longer have the massive primeval forests and plant life that used CO2 and produced oxygen, but still pump millions and Millions of Tons of carbon into our atmosphere. Where does the carbon GO, Judy? If you are the only one who is right, tell us where does the carbon GO??

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 3:18 pm
Thank you for sending a message to your Senators asking them to support the Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act and defend it against Big Oil and Coal.

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 3:21 pm
Done!

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 3:53 pm
Haven't you found out where it goes yet?

Look up "carbon sinks"
http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/070524_carbon_sink.html

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 3:58 pm
This is the BS part of what I posted.

"But these sinks, critical in the effort to soak up some of our greenhouse gas emissions, may be stopping up, thanks to deforestation, and human-induced weather changes that are causing the oceanic carbon dioxide “sponge” to weaken, a new study led by Fraser and detailed in the May 18 issue of the journal Science found"

There was something about CO2 levels dropping the other day....well, the ocean is cooling and can absorb a few more parts per million. The sinks are working....nothing plugged up.


“We have a policy at Greenpeace that we no longer debate people who don't accept the scientific reality of anthropogenic climate change.”
Ben Stewart, Greenpeace
in a letter to Iain Dale
circa 2007-05-28
(Showing that is they who are the real 'deniers', for there is not one climate realist who seeks to suppress debate on the issue)

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 4:39 pm
signed TY Tierney

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 5:43 pm
Thanks for the action item :)

Tuesday October 20, 2009, 6:41 pm
Thank you ~ I have signed : )

Wednesday October 21, 2009, 1:17 am
Great, now Judy Cross is comparing us with Nazis. Her delusions have reached new depths of increduity.

Wednesday October 21, 2009, 6:23 pm
I like how she posts a link to "carbon sinks" then finds out it realy did not support her dogma ... so she backpeddels and points out the "BS part" - when she posts articles BY MISTAKE which actually don't support her view, she has to backpeddel like this - totally HALARIOUS LMAO!!! Then when her "science" crumbles (by her own posted links LOL) she tries to burry it with empty retoric!!!!