What is Cap and Trade?
70WHAT IS CAP AND TRADE?
What is Cap and Trade? Cap and Trade refers to pending legislation designed to raise the cost of energy for Americans. The purpose of the Cap and Trade bill is to force Americans to use less energy and thereby reduce emissions to the level of 100 years ago.
It is estimated that between one million and 2.5 million jobs will be lost each year in America if Cap and Trade legislation passes. Amazingly, President Barack Obama calls it a "jobs bill."
This continues the "DoubleSpeak" that we are growing accustomed to coming from this administration. For instance, President Obama claims the Health Care Bill will cut health care costs. But the Congressional Budget Office says it will increase health care costs by $1,600,000,000,000.
President Obama also claimed that he would balance the budget better than former President Bush. But his latest budget shows a deficit of $1,800,000,000,000—more than ten times higher than the last year the United States had a Republican-controlled Congress. It is estimated that the Cap and Trade bill will add a further 26 percent to our national debt.
THE CAP AND TRADE BILL
The cost of implementing Cap and Trade legislation will be borne by consumers of energy, of course, not the bogeyman of the New Left—Big Business.
It is estimated that if the Cap and Trade bill is made into law, it will cost every American family a minimum of $1600 per year.
Peter Orszag, the former budget director for President Obama, testified to Congress last year that "Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap and trade program."
The Cap and Trade legislation supposedly targets polluters.
But the concept behind Cap and Trade is based on considering Carbon Dioxide to be "pollution."
This is simply not so.
Carbon Dioxide is in fact essential to life on earth.
WHO LOSES?
The greatest inequities of the Cap and Trade bill are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the U.S. that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels—particularly coal.
Coal generates most of the power in the Midwest, Southern, and Plains states. It is no coincidence that the liberals who are the most aggressive about passing Cap and Trade legislation—Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey, for example—come from California or the Northeast.
Coal provides more than half of the electricity in the United States. 25 states get more than 50 percent of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generators. According to the Energy Information Administration, ratepayers in these states are going to get soaked.
Indiana gets 94 percent of its energy from coal; Missouri 85 percent; New Mexico 80 percent; Ohio 86 percent; Pennsylvania 56 percent; West Virginia 98 percent; and Wyoming 95 percent.
CAP AND TRADE LEGISLATION
What Cap and Trade legislation will really do is eliminate what is left of American manufacturing.
Many companies will close or move overseas.
It is overregulation and closed union shops that caused the tragic decline of American manufacturing, which dominated the world economy as recently as the 1950s.
Russia, India, and China—the latter now the biggest "polluter" of all nations in the world—are not being asked to participate in Cap and Trade legislation because they have all three made it clear that their nations will not even consider such a thing.
If Americans want to truly be carbon free they are free to move to Papua New Guinea and live as primitives.
GLOBAL WARMING
If the proposed Cap and Trade bill is implemented, it is estimated that the sacrifice of Americans will lower the temperature of the Earth by nine one-hundredths of one degree by the year 2050.
Cap and Trade legislation is based on the false doctrine of Global Warming. The truth is that the temperatures on Earth have never been constant; they have always fluctuated. Just a few decades ago scientists announced that a New Ice Age was upon us.
In the last decade, temperatures have actually lowered on earth. The earth was warming before this most recent decade, which many scientists blamed on sunspots.
Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a United Nations climate report, has called the very idea of man-made Global Warming "the worst scientific scandal in history."
Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries Global Warming as the "new religion."
THE NEW WORLD ORDER
If signed into law, the Cap and Trade bill will require a new and huge federal bureaucracy.
All homes will undergo an inspection by the federal government before they can be sold or renovated—and the improvements required by the Cap and Trade bill are estimated to cost $6800 per home.
The ultimate goal of Cap and Trade proponents is to eliminate American sovereignty and make the United Nations the global government of a New World Order. Then Cap and Trade will be used to redistribute American wealth to Third World peoples.
WHO WINS?
The Cap and Trade permits will be awarded by Democrat politicians to the gigantic corporations that supported Democratic candidates in the last election cycle.
In other words, Cap and Trade legislation is not meant to benefit all Americans.
The permits will specifically be awarded only to corporations that are unionized, for instance to companies that do business with President Obama's Marxist friends at the SEIU.
Anyone who doubt this will come true should study which automobile dealers were closed by the administration of President Obama shortly after he took office.
Not one of the dealers forced out of business by the government—that is not supposed to pick winners and losers in business—was minority owned and not one was a dealership that contributed to the election campaign of Barack Obama.
Money is even allotted in the Cap and Trade bill to be granted to Community Organizations such as the fraudsters of ACORN.
CAP AND TRADE
Soon after the election of Barack Obama, a friend of mine who has been an electrical contractor for 30 years, got me pretty excited about starting a new enterprise together to take advantage of the grants offered by the $787,000,000,000 Stimulus Package to make homes and businesses Green.
One reason I was excited is that, along with millions of other Americans, I had been out of work since not long after the Democrats took over Congress in 2007.
I knew that our local college, Central Florida University, was heavily involved in technology and research regarding Green Issues.This is the 3rd largest University in America, though few know this outside of Orlando.
I am acquainted with a couple of researchers at the university and so I visited with them. They write grant proposals such as the one I was hoping to submit.
When I told them our idea, this is what they said: "Are you a registered Democrat? If not, you have no chance of getting money from the Stimulus Package. The contracts are awarded only to supporters of Barack Obama, who sign a contract that stipulates they will not use any non-union workers, which also has quotas for minority workers in your company."
OTHER HUBS BY THE KING JAMES VERSION
This Hub is for my friend Bill. I have previously published Hubs about:
How the Mortgage Crisis caused the Worldwide Financial Meltdown
CommentsLoading...
Jim, a concise and informative article. You make it seem easy to explain. I agree with you. This is much more politics and siezing of power than science and caring for people. All of these people would have everyone of the "common" folk living like pre-industrial farmers while they would continue to be using every advance civilization has provided. This is not not spreading the wealth it is distroying it for all but a few. It is all so needless and in our society, too few people care enough to investigate beyond what pops up at them from a mainstream newscast or distorted news item. These things will sneak up on us and we will all say, "what happened?" or "how did this happen?" to which I would reply, "Laziness, and apathy allowed evil to win!"
stars439--- You are welcome, sir. I sincerely appreciate your fine compliments. Thank you very much for reading my works. You are a good man.
plasma tv uk--- Thank you very much for coming by and leaving your comments. You are most welcome, too.
Dear James: Thank you for and informative hub and what goes on in our country. Your work and photographs and details are impeccably perfect. God Bless You.
Good work thank you for giving out this information, it has been very useful for me and i'm sure others have found it useful too
Sufidreamer— Career change!? This IS my career! :D
I surely agree with you. Preparation is the key. Readiness. And we need to work together for a better world. Amen!
Great to hear from you always, Brother!
Eastern Rainbow— Thank you very much for becoming my fan and for your nice compliments. I will come to read your Hubs soon. Welcome to the Hub Pages Community!
Hi James - thanks for the kind words!
No worries, but your Hub is doing its job by provoking a cracking debate, without any shouting or ill-will. That is the mark of a top journalist - maybe you should think about a career change!
I guess that I have a different viewpoint from most - I am not interested in the politics surrounding Global Warming - my job is to try to find the unbiased science and base my opinion on that. I studied climatology and oceanography, so that gives me a different insight from most people - I'll let you political commentators handle the media!
My only fear is that people will be turned off by the likes of Gore and begin denying that Global Warming is happening at all. That is a dangerous path - the effect of humanity is certainly open to question, but there is little doubt that the climate is gradually warming. We should be preparing for that - it is great that most people seem to agree :)
As you, someonewhoknows and Joe said, we try to work against nature too much. Whilst you can never live somewhere completely safe (we have forest fires and earthquakes here), you can minimise the chances of disasters.
A quick story, before I completely take over your Hub - the area where my mother lives suffered severe flooding recently. However, my mother lives next to a salt-marsh and that soaked up all the excess water, leaving her village unscathed. Instead of spending millions of dollars on expensive flood defences, encouraging nature is cheaper and is much more pleasant to look at!
The win/win solutions are there - we just need to think sideways rather than becoming entrenched in an us vs them battle.
I'm your fan! Love your hubs! Your joy and love for life shines forth
joer4X4— I agree with your great point. What about that sun? I suppose some think it has no effect on weather or life on Earth in general. Except for God; the sun is everything.
someonewhoknows— I think half the population that left New Orleans is not coming back. Building a metropolis next to the sea well under sea level has always puzzled me.
Sufidreamer— I couldn't agree more with your brilliant analysis. I'm starting to think you should have written this Hub, or one similar. Nature has always been dangerous for people. Look at how all those folks lived right under Mt. Vesuvius; and those near Krakatoa. Typhoons, tornadoes, thunderstorms at sea; great earthquakes. I think postmodern man is blinded by science and thinks he can solve everything thereby leading to theories such as "man caused global warming." Next, they may be saying man causing earthquakes and volcanoes, too. It's dangerous out there. That's all there is to it.
You have the solution. Don't build on barrier islands; or in the flood plain of the Mississippi and a whole huge city 12 feet below sea level next to the sea. Don't live under a volcano. Don't live where earthquakes are common or if you do fortify your dwellings. I think the most dangerous are tornadoes. They come out of nowhere, suddenly, are terrifically powerful, and what can you do if you're sleeping when it comes? No building can stop it except concrete bunkers.
Sufidreamer:
Good points. To be honest on this one, the politics is a deep infestation with the UN and governments driving it to satisfy their appetite for even more money. Big business has a lot to do with it too, but with government regulating just about everything, how much is unclear? Some of it is probably self protection.
One fascinating observation that I see in so many reports is the Sun is ether minimalized or non-existent.
sooner than later— Thank you very much for your warm words. I appreciate the visit and the compliments.
Sufidreamer - You'd think the people who still,live in New Orleans,would be able to read the writing on the ocean wall and move to higher ground.Especially the ones who had insurance to rebuild.But,then they probably feel connected to the cultural circumstances that they grew up with and associate with that place.
Thanks, James - I have been having a very interesting discussion with joer4x4 about this in the forums. The problem is dividing the science from the politics, which is extremely difficult - the oil lobby has a lot to answer for, but equal blame must be laid at the feet of Gore (I walked out of that movie after 15 minutes!)
Even a few years ago, when I studied climatology and oceanography, research into Global Warming was progressing nicely and scientists made some interesting observations and tentative predictions. However, this research became a battleground and unqualified people have jumped on the bandwagon. My cat knows as much about climatology as Al Gore, yet Gore proudly proclaims that he is an expert :/
Governments are to blame but so are the media and industrial and environmental lobbyists - everybody has their snout in the trough and I have the distinct feeling that this is all a case of standing by while Rome burns (or floods!). IMO, a lot of it is do do with 'being seen' to do the right thing, instead of actually doing the right thing!
Cap and Trade is not going to help people living in low lying regions protect their homes from the encroaching seas. Instead of trying to fight nature, we should be trying to adapt to it and make changes. New Orleans was a warning - if we ignore it, then that will be a sad commentary on humanity.
James, Really nice article. I think you nailed it on the head here. this bill has been a major concern of mine as well and I think you did a great job writing about it. Your friend in Jesus, Sooner.
joer4X4— Amen! I think we can come to agreement about this.
someonewhoknows— I don't think anything stops inventors in a Capitalist country. In a Communist country yes—what's the reward for years of research? People are motivated by reward. Thanks for the links.
"I am pretty much of the opinion that, instead of fiddling with trading schemes, we should be preparing for the worst"
Thank you! We should be doing this for earthquakes, hurricanes, and the whole nine yards. But government would rather put money in their own pocket.
donotfear— I am glad you did, too! I appreciate it.
Sufidreamer— It's a pleasure to hear from you again, my friend. I enjoyed reading your comments. You come in with a voice of reason, calm, level-headed—if you don't know something, you say so. I like it. And I agree with every word. We should watch the Dutch. They've always pretty sharp—especially about water. Thanks much for coming.
Is,current scientific theory on the part of the majority,of scientists keeping inventors from developing new technologies,as well as preventing investors from backing these new technologies?
Consider the information from the links below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JrpdVZyt_s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdnV1umiJpo
I'm glad I read this one!
Abe Normal— I am not a fan of Al Gore even though my company did fly him around in one of our jets some time ago. Thank you for your comments. I will check out that Stossel video. I think he's a great investigative reporter.
This cap and trade thing does seem to be, at best, a shambles and at worst, a money grab.
Sadly, finding any reasonable research about the phenomenon is practically impossible - oil interests on one side, and the Gorebots on the other, have buried the real science below layers of political BS. It is very frustrating.
Personally, the data I have seen (which, as an ex-oceanographer, very much includes the oceans!) shows that the levels of CO2 are increasing and that global temperatures are rising. I am sceptical of the worst case scenarios, but ocean levels are steadily rising.
Whether humanity is having an effect? Inconclusive, IMO :) I am pretty much of the opinion that, instead of fiddling with trading schemes, we should be preparing for the worst - the Dutch are quietly building up their dykes, and they know a thing or two about sea-levels!
Alternative energy is a good thing (we just installed a solar water heater, which will save us a lot of money), but the political BS is even affecting that - why buy a Prius when a small, efficient 70MPG internal combustion car is 'greener' and costs less money to fill up!
The same goes for the ocean acidification - I am not a fan of the worst case scenarios - I would rather address problems such as overfishing and coastal pollution, all of which are far more ecologically and economically devastating.
Paraglider— Thank you for tuning in and leaving your cautionary words of wisdom. I will certainly come read your Hub ASAP.
joer4X4— The newest nicad batteries, which Telsa uses, are amazingly lightweight and long-lasting. I agree we should be drilling our own oil, such as the Bakken. And you are surely correct that the government should not be spending taxpayer money on any of this. Any remotely worthwhile project will attract private capital. Thank you again, for your very knowledgeable point of view. It's a pleasure to have your brain here.
See John Stossel (ABC, 20/20) tear into Obama style Health Care reform with alotta footage of Canadian nightmares. He says profit-driven care rules, and cap and trade is a hard sell to countries like China. But is Al Gore a "political pervert" as pundit Mary Matlin points out?
-A.N.
Ars longa, vita brevis
James - this was an entertaining hub, if a rather dangerous one. It's usually a good idea to reserve judgment on extremely complex issues like climate change, or at least acknowledge that the issue is not clear cut. As a physicist turned engineer, climatology is far from my expertise so I won't join the debate. However, I will take the liberty of recommending that you read my recent hub called 'What Science Is (and what it is not)'. Have a good day!
James:
Yea! I heard of Telsa before. I think they make an awesome product. Electric vehicles make great offroading machines due to the constant torque. Very quite and smooth too.
OK, you live in the ciry (where most do), probably in a row home where parking right in front of your home is non existant. When you do get it there some passerby trips on the cord that leads from your house to you car - now you have a law suit. Just doesn't work for the city dweller.
It takes coal, oil, or whatever to make the electricity to plug it in to our already fragile grid. So you still have the emmission thing. Since cars won't use gas, that has to be replace by the power company to make up for the additional draw of power for each car on the road. So energy usage is not going to be reduced - just transferred.
Now we have to triple our pollution because now we will have bigger and more battery packs laying in landfills compared to the ones we use now. Tons of mercury.
The battery pack has to cost a couple of thousand. If you run it down too far, as with any battery, no matter how old it is - it won't hold a charge any more.
How often does the pack need to be replace plus the other maintenence - is it just as cost effective? An engine can last well over 200,000 miles. It takes only a few minutes to rechage an engine at the gas pump. And if you're drill ing for your own oil and don't tax it to death gas is cheap. Only 90 cents a gallon in Saudi Arabia.
What about in snow and bad weather where a vehilcle uses more energy? Still 244 miles on a charge? How did Telsa test these in the real world? And what about ice cold weather - the arch enemy of the battery? Has that been solved?
Could you imagine the cost for a hotel to dug up their parking to put outlets in each spot (expensive for a homeowner too). Then they will have to bill for using more electricity.
Maybe it will work for rich. That's pretty much who is buying this stuff now. But for the rest of us, just like the gas engine, we need the infrastructure put in place.
Right now, is doesn't reduce emmisions, create more mercury than we are creating now, is cumbersome, not yet cost effective. This is why the green industry has been living off of taxpayer money. No one will invest in them because they're not making money. It's just not there yet.
There are a lot of reasons that people won't be happy with these things in the long term unless the technolgy changes real fast. It;s going to take billions of dollars just to rebuild the electrical grid to chage these things. Meaning more government involvemet and taxex and regulation.
The upside is they are awesome and if I were rich I'd have one customed in 4WD with 2 battery packs for power and long range.
Personally, I think its a can of worms unless business can do it on its own. But it can't.
But this is what cap and trade depends on.
John B— As you well know, I have played both of those a time or two. :)
Like Ric Ocasek & Jimi said(sang): Let The Good Times Roll
Portamenteff— I did happen to notice that, yea. I'm sure it's just an oversight. Surely, there are not people in the world—and certainly not any Americans: and absolutely not my President . . . who would want to kill American companies unless China, Russia and India agreed to the same rules. I would find that shocking beyond belief.
Welcome to HubPages! :D
You notice "cap and tax" doesn't apply to "developing" nations surprisingly including China who is currently out producing the US by several times in manufacturing. They also "out-emit" us in carbon too. They have NO regulations whatsoever on smokestack emissions. There is litterally one hundred miles of factories from the east coast of China inland. It is not about emissions, but about destroying the United States. We have that pesky little thing called the Constitution in the way of their agenda.
someonewhoknows
Thanks, I appreciate the videos but GM and Cheveron have their own axes to grind. And look who owns Cheveron and now GM. Car companies have been heavily regulated for years so I don't consider them an unbiased source. Not that GM is an arm for the government but it does affect them.
Next time I wander over to the library I'll have to keep this subject in mind. It takes a lot of work to cut though politics and get to the truth.
I guess I could buy a small amount if it is available and throw some pieces of plasic, rubber, and metal parts in it (spare parts from my old KIA Sportage) for a couple months and see what develops.
Thanks again.
Have a great weekend everyone!
someonewhoknows— You are surely up on your energy. This is far from my area of expertise, if I had any. My knowledge tends to be wide rather than deep except for a few things such as history, theology, music, aviation, politics, and baseball.
someonewhoknows— What about Geothermal energy?
James - Hopefully new technologies will contribute to the relief of energy shortages in the future thereby reducing the pressure on producing ethanol from corn as the only alternative fuel which would alter your view of using ethanol from corn as it can also be produced using almost any cellulose material.
joer4X4— I hadn't read your comment yet when I mentioned to someonewhoknows that ethanol competing with food but that could be a problem at some juncture.
Joer4x4 - The reason gasoline engines pollute less now is mainly the catalytic converter which burns off the exhaust gases from the engine.I agree,an increase in corn production for fuel,increases the short term price of corn,but as corn production goes up the price of corn should come back down.That's how supply and demand works.It's been said that it cost more to produce ethanol than energy we get out of it.That's outdated material based on old technology.Production processes have improved since then that allows for producing ethanol from all cellulose materials including trash.
There is disinformation out there on ethanol,for reasons that we can guess at.Energy is the single most lucritive fields of business.
Here are some interesing youtube videos on the latest technology in energy production from trash, ethanol,and traditional gasoline interests.
PLASMA GASIFICATION OF TRASH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuOs1yap8mU
E85 CONVERSION KITS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2GUREeHy1s
MOTORWEEKS TAKE ON E85 CONVERSION KITS using information provided by General Motors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1_3rfK3yiY
CHEVERON ON E85
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4v8slGHuG8
Talk by Oronto Douglas, former attorney for Ken Saro-Wiwa, on the continueing brutality and devastation in Nigeria from Shell and other oil companies. Recorded September 22, 1998 in Seattle.
Hxprof— Thank you for that tip. I'll have to check that out. Maybe we can move to Greenland if it gets warm enough. :)
TheMindlessBrute— When do we get to attend the unveiling of your internetosophy?
someonewhoknows— Doesn't massive ethanol use raise the price of corn as a foodstuff? I believe in Brazil they make it from sugar cane. I agree about not covering large swaths of land with solar panels. On homes mostly, and some businesses and schools, was what I was referring to. Naturally, I agree we should never stifle the research and development of new energy technologies.
someonewhoknows:
Not to change the subject but the opportunity presents itself.
Here in PA the state just gave away (a grant) $15 million to Heliosphera to set up shop here in South Philadelphia. The company will make solar panels. Cap and Trade is alive in PA.
Now I don't mind alternative energy sources at all but I am totallly against government giving away tax payer money for any purpose to business.
The handout tells me investors have turned away because they won't see a good return on their dollar.
On ethanol - my research tells me it is corrosive but I'm kinda on the fence with that.
I will say from my off road experience when I had my vehicles engine constantly running 8 - 12 hours it definitely ran better in summer than winter when they added ethanol to gas. But I can't say definitively as it was only 10%.
Most cars have a little kick (for lack of a better term) that most don't notice. It is slight and you have pay attention when at idle and it doesn't always show on the tack. But you can feel it in some models - mostly trucks. It's basically the electronics adjusting the engine.
Anyway the point is I notice this kick happens a lot more in winter than summer. With all thing being constant the thought did occur to me it is the ethanol.
With today's technology the gas engine is practically non-polluting and with so much oil, natural gas, and coal, I don't think it is a good idea to convert food sources for use as a fuel. Given history, you never know when there could be a food shortage.
Thoughts?
James, speaking of the colonies in Greenland, there's an excellent summation of the colonists' situation in the book Collapse by Jared Diamond.
No but if you have it then I know it's a good one.I'll have to get that one.
Your welcome James.Their is collusion however between the oil companies and the car companies in America and General Motors is right in the middle of it.G.M. has made more money by investing ,or should I say speculating on the price of fuel than it has selling cars.Obviously the two are intmately connected.It's been that way since gasoline became the fuel of choice at the beginning of the 20th century when John D. Rockefeller paid a group called the christian women's temperance movement to lobby congress to outlaw the production of Alcohol for any use.That was the beginning of prohibition which allowed Rockerfeller to take away the publics choice between Ethanol and gasoline.Ethanol ran clean,and engines ran better on it.Gasoline polluted the air,fouled engines,and required a lead additive for gasoline powered engines to run properly,until it was discovered that adding ethanol in with the gasoline cut down on air pollution as well as improved the engines performance.If,we had used only Ethanol instead of gasoline all these years,even used the two fuels together as we do now,we would have been better off.But,no,Rockerfeller wanted all the money from fuel for cars all for himself.
I have no issue with solar panels on roofs of residential ,and commercial buildings but not over land,that has better uses.Insulation is good as long as the materials they used to make the insulation are recyclable.Smart homes are a good idea also.Minimising energy consumption is always a good idea.But,non of the above are reasons to omit new technologies that can give us access to an almost unlimited energy source as opponents want to do.
TheMindlessBrute! I love you, man! It's about time you showed up. AH!! Old man Malthus raises his ugly head. Where's HG Wells when you need him! Well, we do have Peter Singer to rely on. The useless eaters. Did I loan you my book by William Schockley?
Mortgagestar1— Welcome to HubPages! Well, I've been scolded a number of times by my readers of a bent just to the left of the foul pole—upper deck—about judging President Obama by those he appoints to help him run the country. I guess I won't comment on that one right now. :)
I heard last night that Obama is hosting a job creation summit but they purposefully did not invite the U.S. Chamber of Commerce nor the National Federation of Independent Businesses (I used to belong to both for a long time) because they publicly oppose his health care bill.
Your comments are great! Thank you for taking the time to read my humble Hub and for leaving your wise words here. I look forward to further conversations with you.
propeshka— After this whole long thread, you come along and make the most sense of all. Thank you very much. Next time come along earlier and save us all this trouble.
I'm just kidding. Your comments are brilliant and I thank you for them. :)
John B— I dunno. I have a half a dozen projects in the conceptual stage, but not about politics. You know how I like my variety. I am researching the Crusades right now. And mentally putting together Hubs about smart homes; why people love dogs so much; what is marriage and is it important enough for us to care about its survival as a human institution; the International Space Station; and maybe one about the first 10,000 comments I have received (to be reached in a few days) from the most witty, the most atrocious, the most idiotic, the most intelligent, the longest, the shortest . . .
And I have requests for Hubs about the greatest baseball closers of all time; proper etiquette for hosting a dinner party in your home; and a summary of the Pastoral Letters; a comparison of Christian Denominations; and . . . here is one I may move up for my political fans: Who is Eric Holder anyway and why does he want this trial in New York.
Thanks for asking. :-)
joer4X4— Yes! Thank your for the concurrence and the additional comments which bolster my main idea—say no to Cap & Trade. Though it was time-consuming, I thank you for your contributions. I learned a lot from your comments
someonewhoknows— On the contrary, I am a solid proponent of nuclear power. And, the sooner the internal combustion engine goes away the better in my opinion. I think there are manifold things each household can do with insulation, solar panels, smart homes, etc. that cumulatively can make a huge difference. I am simply opposed to Cap & Trade legislation. I am all for reducing energy consumption and finding new technologies, such as those I read about in the links you provided—which are excellent. Thanks for the information.
In a joint letter to the President where Sen. Lieberman expresses his dismay for the U.S. being only 1 in 180 nations not to sign Kyoto, McCain states:
"Mr. MCCAIN: Over the past year, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee has held several hearings on the various scientific reports from the National Academy of Science and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These reports conclude that air temperatures are, in fact, rising. The IPCC report states that there is new and stronger evidence that most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. We continue to see throughout the world the melting of glaciers, the dying of coral reefs, and rising ocean temerpatures."
The International conspiracy has Malthusian overtones,thinks this mindlessbrute.There is a direct relationship between carbon output and life expectancy,infant mortality etc...Worse than the devolution and decimation of the American middle class,will be the annihilation of millions of lives of the worlds useless eaters,by the oligarchs and their useful idiots.
Oh yeah I almost forgot,the 1000 pound gorilla riding a pink elephant in the room,the ministry of propaganda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMdyfv41cvw
Gotta blast and go feed my brain with some real news like Tigergate and Whitehouse party crashers.
Well, people wanted a change. That's what you will have after this administration is finished taxing, regulating, and mandating. When Frank Luntz surveyed young people between the ages 15 through 30 about Cap & Trade as well as the muti-trillion dollar debt being past on to them, they had a different view. Most of the respondents were pro Tax & Trade before they read the proposal and saw the conservative estimated cost they will pay themselves. Add in all the other socialist transformation from free market capitalism, they then knew they would pay between 60% to 75% of thier income in taxes! This is why the Democrats were trying to Fast Track the bills and NOT allow time for the average citizen to think about the final outcome. Remember, members of Congress EXEMPTED themselves from these very bills we must live under. Obama promises bi partisanship, yet the Republicans are litterally locked out and the Dems are behind closed doors in secret, so much for a transparent government Obama promised. The Health Care bill is being written by lawyers, lobbyist, insurance bosses, and not one medical doctor. This is why the congressmen do NOT know whats in the bill, which is over 2000 pages of fine print legal hieroglyphics, even most attorneys can't make it out! Obama said he would NOT sign a bill if it added one dime to the federal debt. He signed an 8,000 plus pork bill in closed doors with NO media present!
He appointed a tax cheat and Wall Street weisel as our Treasury Secretary, a racist Attorney General, Card carrying Communist Van Jones, and petiphilia proponent and NAMBLA supporter Kevin Jennings, President Obama's Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug FreeSchools at the U.S. Department of Education., People, what's wrong with tese pictures? Sometimes a change in direction is a dangerous one.
Economists have studied what ways work best to cut pollution. Most of them would say this bill is a bit too much of a gamble. The technology to accurately quantify how much C02 is being produced is still in it's infancy and very difficult and expensive to set up.
Additionally, for the tax to really work you have to have access to all polluting firms books to see who to tax so you can guestimate how much to tax by. Make the tax too high, and the economy suffers. Make the tax too long, and there is only a small, marginal reduction in pollution.
This contrived fantasy's been debunked adequately. Grasping at straws will continue by extremists and as RUSH said, the same people crying "Carbon Strangulation" will turn up next year in some "Save The Planet From Aliens" or "Save Our Extinction Due To Killer Space Debris" or something! What's the next subject, Bro'?
James:
You're right on target.
Mankind and animal life proliferated during the medieval warm period. So if anything did man caused it to get colder?
During the little ice age disease and pestilence prevailed.
The difference between history and science is that history gets is right the first time 100% of the time. History has no agenda.
History has shown CO2 does not create warming and it is always a product of warming. CO2 does not cause oceans to warm or cool. Only the sun can do that.
CO2 supports life and indirectly supports human life with or without science. It is what it is and no one can change it in argument, taxes, legislation, or any other means.
Thanks to the miracle of CO2 we have life, existence, and purpose. That in itself is the most important aspect of all.
There none so blind than those who will not see.
Anyway, I going now to celebrate the greatest gift I have - life. So I will leave a trail of carbon foot prints behind that will be cycled back in to oxygen so I can have life tomorrow too.
Have a fantastic day!
Gee, I'm posting all this here and I could have had another hub! Doh! LOL!
John B— Thank you for that link. Your contributions have been outstanding. You are a good man. And a good citizen patriot.
Hxprof— Your genial commentary is wise to the nth degree. Thank you very much for putting the truth so succinctly.
joer4X4— I agree with you. I don't think we want to destroy our national economy to facilitate the leftists dream of a new world communist order. There are plenty of scientists who believe there is no global warming and plenty who think there might be but in no way caused by humans.
The Fat Kid— I think mistake science for global politics. The same UN that wants to destroy the wealth of the United States puts terrorist and totalitarian states on its human rights committee. Wake up, son.
jonmillett— Ridicule does not raise your image.
jonmillett—
The Science of Global Warming
in Perspective
Climategate files show what had already been established by critics: The temperature increase is fake. Satellite measurements show very little temperature increase (due to warming oceans, not CO2), but the satellite data was adjusted to fit fake thermometer data. The files show the attitudes and standards of deception and connivance.
There is no scientifically valid mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming, because CO2 absorbs the limited radiation available to it in about ten meters (Heinz Hug). An increase in CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. Since scientists know this, a fake mechanism is contrived for the top of the troposphere based on thin spectrum shoulders. But again, an increase in CO2 only shortens the distance radiation travels, which does nothing significant to increase the temperature. And there is no explanation of how the supposed temperature increase at the top of the troposphere, which is very cold, can produce heat at ground level. And since this is also known, some climatologists revert back to the near-earth analysis.
Nature shows that greenhouse gasses do nothing, because precipitation has been increasing, and any heating of the atmosphere due to greenhouse gasses would have decreased precipitation. Increased snow and ice over the centers of Antarctica and Greenland have caused oceans to stop rising over the past few years.
There was 5 times as much CO2 in the air during the dinosaur years, and 20 times as much before that, because oceans absorb CO2 and tie it up as calcium carbonate in coral reefs gradually forming limestone. There is now 1/3 as much CO2 in the air as plants need to grow on.
Climate is controlled by the oceans, not the atmosphere.
The oceans have 1,000 times more heat capacity than the atmosphere. It means oceans can heat the air far more than air can heat the oceans. And it means carbon dioxide is not heating the oceans. Solar and geothermal energy heat the oceans.
A major reason why greenhouse gasses do not create significant global warming is because the relevant radiation only interacts with the earth within the first few meters (10 meters for CO2). Above that, the radiation is doing everything it does in all directions equally, which does not change the amount of heat in the atmosphere.
Important Fact: Oceans overwhelm all other influences on climate. Oceans, being 70% of the earth's surface, are the climate regulators influencing air temperature, humidity and precipitation. Yet the IPCC did not account for the effects of oceans, because they had no data or theory to go by, and they couldn't handle that much complexity. The total fraud of the IPCC is demonstrated by this fact.
Volcanoes put 2.3% as much CO2 into the air as humans every year (gov source). If CO2 could accumulate, the volcanic amount in 43 years would equal the human amount for one year. Volcanoes have been doing it for 5 billion years, and humans for only 150 years. The supposed total amount of human accumulation (240 GT) is put into the atmosphere by volcanoes every 1,200 years. See Delicate Balance Fraud
Where does the volcanic CO2 go, if the human amount accumulates? If it is acidifying the oceans, why didn't volcanoes acidify the oceans many times over? See Acid in the Ocean Fraud
Nature puts 26 times as much CO2 in the air through decay and respiration as humans do through energy sources.
James - I take it you don't think we have practical alternatives to coal!I have done searches on alternative energy and there appears to have been numerous references to practical alternatives that have all been ignored or hidden from the general public,for fear of competition for the energy markets,as well as the low cost as opposed to the high costs we pay now,and will continue to pay into the future if,we close our eyes to these alternatives.I'm not talking about wind farms,or solar farms.
http://www.free-energy.ws/johann-bessler.html
http://www.free-energy.ws/transportation.html
http://www.free-energy.ws/peter-lindemann.html
The Fat Kid— 31,000 scientists signed a petition that humans are not the cause of global warming.
jomillett— From 6000 to 2500 years ago things cooled down, with the coolest stretch occuring between 4000 and 2500 years ago: the Iron Age neoglaciation.
Then things warmed up for a while, and then they cooled down from 500 to 1000 AD. Yes, the so-called "Dark Ages" were also chilly!
After this came the Medieval climate optimum, a period from about 1000 to 1300 AD during which European temperatures reached their warmest levels for the last 4000 years. DO YOU ALSO SUPPOSE IT WAS CARBON EMISSIONS THAT CAUSED THIS GLOBAL WARMING?
From 1450 AD to 1890 there was a period of cooling, often called the Little Ice Age. This killed off the Icelandic colonies in Greenland.
mercon— Whew! is right. Thanks for your comment.
Eastern Rainbow— You support Cap and Trade for your country, China? Because your government certainly does not. Thanks for visiting and letting me know you were here.
jonmillett— The world might be a better place if it was warmer. It used to be much warmer you know. The earth has always warmed and cooled all by itself. In the 1970s there was a panic that the earth was going to freeze to death, remember? If it was warmer, we have have much more agricultural lands in northern climes.
The Fat Kid— I read your link. This treaty is designed to penalize the United States and bring them down to the level of a third world country. It is an international conspiracy. Notice China, the world's largest polluter, has zero penalties under Kyoto and neither does India.
The Fat Kid—One need only look to Europe to see both why America still needs coal, and how cap-and-trade policies are doomed for failure. The European Union’s cap-and-trade program is in complete collapse as much of Eastern Europe, Italy, and Germany are all demanding exemptions from their carbon limits. Not only has the EU’s cap-and-trade failed to actually reduce carbon emissions, but even if the reductions were met, they would have no impact on world temperatures. Meanwhile, Germany plans to build 27 coal-fired plants by 2020. Italy plans to increase its reliance on coal from 14% today to 33% in just five years. In all of Europe, 40 new major coal power plants are set to be built in the next five years.
While the rest of the world is adding power supply, we are subtracting it. Obama’s allies at the National Resources Defense Council have stopped construction on 65 coal plants and 13 natural gas plants nationwide. Right now, the U.S. has 760 gigawatts of power to meet consumption. We will need 135 gigawatts of new capacity over the next decade to keep the lights on, but right now only 57 gigawatts of power are planned. Coal supplies almost half of our nation’s electricity and more than 20% of our nation’s total energy consumption. We need more coal plants, not less. Despite decades of subsidies, alternative energies such as wind and solar power contribute only 1% of our nation’s energy needs.
SOURCE: The Heritage Foundation December 1, 2009
lindagoffigan— I am skipping ahead to answer your comment out of order. I do appreciate you coming by and giving us your point of view. The 2 researchers I spoke to are not my friends. I have only met them twice. They belong to a Christian Men's Group to which I also belong. They write grants. That is what they do. They are researchers at a major university. They have no reason to lie to me about it. It was on the news yesterday that 83% of the stimulus money in Ohio has gone to Democratic districts that voted for Obama, with the highest amounts to districts that he barely won. This is simply Chicago politics writ large. See for your self:
I can tell you where the CO2 is and I can measure it. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are c. 390 ppm, that's a very small number, but very high for atmospheric CO2. I have an infra red gas analyser (IRGA) sat next to me, turned on and measuring - with good accuracy the Co2 concentrations of the air in my office (with the window open), it reads 384 ppm. I know it's working because when I breath on the inlet the CO2 concentrations rise rapidly.
The wheels continue to come off the GW scare. Reuters right now:
"Climate talk collapse better for planet: NASA's Hansen.................."
James, what a lively discussion. Your friend was incorrect to think that the $787 billion stimulus package was only for Democrats. The bill was made into law to stimulate the economy to recovery with an infusion of money for state govenments, transportation, federal departments and to create jobs. Any discussion on any positives that President Obama or do we have to look at that sad picture that no one is guilty haven't taken before. Only one president, Barack H. Obama, for 2012.
jonmillett, my last comment on this: You've presented genuine evidence that demands a look. Dissenters present the same. Point is that man-made global warming is NOT settled science as some are prone to declare-it's simply not. There are scientists who originally signed off on the IPCC report who've since recanted. (not unusual in research)
Can't disagree with your statement that, " No reputable national science body in any country holds a view to the contrary" regards man made global warming. Fine. Are each of these organizations basing their views upon the same data studies or has each organizations undertaken a painstaking search for the truth by gathering data themselves and making independent conclusions?
Any researcher who approaches a subject with a preconceived idea of what the results will be must do this with an open mind. This means being willing to look at information that suggests other than what the researcher anticipated. It's this way for scientific, historical, sociological and other fields of research. I'm not convinced that the IPCC did this.
Finally, for a nation state to base its domestic energy policy on unsettled science, knowing that the costs (at least for many developed countries) are going to be colossal is dicey. There's a great deal of 'peer pressure' from those states who've decided to buy into this science on those states which have not done the same. Any country that wants to do this should go ahead and do it. If the American govenment wants to go forward with this WITHOUT the approval, by referendum, of the American people, it is IMO forbidden.
Great Wide Open— The Lefties stopped nuclear power in our country. I think they envision the whole nation in a hippie commune practicing free love, sharing each others "significant others," growing in Gnosis,and living off the land without electricity or refrigeration.
France gets 70% of their power from Nuclear with no problems whatsoever. We should do the same.
joer4X4— You are welcome. Mathematics does appear to be a key to understanding the physical world. You've done your homework.
someonewhoknows— Since I originally hail from southwestern Michigan, I can attest to lake-effect snow alright. My mom says they had bitter cold, a long winter on both ends, and more snow than they have had in many years up there. Here in Florida, I haven't noticed any weather change in 18 years.
Thanks for sharing your expertise and asking many excellent questions.
jonmillett
I never mistook heat for humidity. Your just reading what you can into what I am saying. You're trying to make an emotional argument.
If there is enough CO2 to cause warming, then where is it? I want to know why the Earth is not warming now!
With all your scientific "facts", most are only theory, you tend to follow the alarmist path of ignoring our only source of heat - the sun.
The truth is all this scientific data is theory. It has never been proven, or duplicated.
Perhaps it's your emotional state that you are unable to cope with? Good science has no emotions.
Your posts a well noted and accepted. Your point of view is accepted and respected. But using political tactics just beats around the bush leading no where.
Fat Kid - I feel that you haven't read any of my comments. As I said. What you say is completely true. I completely and utterly agree with you. My entire point is that these climate change deniers don't understand or use the science. If they have a problem with the science then they need to say what that problem is and justify why a particular piece of science is wrong. I reference the Royal Society ocean Acidification report because it is a good synthesis of our current understanding - this is what they should use for their information. The same with the IPCC report and anything else I have referred to.
Please read my posts properly - and the posts that they are reactions to before you insult me. And on your last point I think it is misunderstanding alogn with a wish to not understand.
If you don't believe what the scientists have to say why use scientists to back your arguments?
If you have any regard for the truth you would delete all reference to the Royal Society. It is a body which offers no support for your views.
Frankly in these kinds of threads I find either deliberate attempts to obfuscate or at best, serious misunderstanding of what is at issue.
"The differnce between a 90 degree day in Arizona and say Philly is worlds apart. In Philly it can be unbearable to some and it's the humidity that makes it feel warmer than is its. Philly has access to more water vapor."
Hahaha... hilarious. Mistaking humidity for heat.
"If anything, CO2 might be able to cause a cool down but I think there has to be so much of it where the molecules are dense enough so it can move back and forth from solid to liquid at the poles."
Hahahaha... solid CO2 at the poles... hahahaha...
"I don't believe humans can do enough to cause climate change. The Earth and ecosystems are just to large for us humans to do anything about either positive or negative in the long term."
Hahahaha.... except humans use 50% of the Worlds freshwater supply and consume 42% of the worlds plant growth, that's a pretty big impact.
"If CO2 were a culprit, it would take us hundreds of years and we would have to put out 20 times the CO2 to over take what is naturally in the atmosphere. But at that point we could no longer survive as a species."
hahahahahahaha..... what an expert synthesis of the evidence...
Please keep contributing. Your comments are the funniest things I have read in a long long time. Some more from the oracle of joer4x4
"And if CO2 is so detrimental to life, why are we still living?"
"You don't have to be or use science to know global warming is a scam."
"CO2 causes warming? Now that doesn't not make sense. Wouldn't a CO2 extinquisher eject warm material?"
HAHAHAHAHA.....HAHA... I can't cope.
Fat Kid - the problem here is that the other contributors here, and the originator of the article just don't believe what you write. I am trying to address each of their 'criticisms' of climate change science (For example joer4x4s comments re: CO2). I think you'll agree that the waters are pretty murkey on here already.
While your comments are completely correct, the contributors here just don't believe them. They don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that is causes warming, or even that the increase is due to humans. They don't trust the IPCC, or scientists. They think it's all a conspiracy to increase taxes - a conspiracy that they now think is supported by the CRU email thefts. They will counter your argument by referencing some quack climate change denial websites.
The only way to try to persuade them (and I actually think it's a lost cause) is to pick apart their arguments and show where and why they are wrong.
I would hope that if you read all the contributions, mine fit in as part of the 'conversation'. I am responding to the original post.
jonmillett
I'm sure there is some point to your contributions but unless you make it clear what you are saying, you are simply muddying the water. The important point is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been steadily rising since the beginning of the industrial revolution and that has contributed hugely to the global warming seen in the same period.
The fact that so much CO2 is dissolving in the oceans is causing its own problems. Sea water pH is increasing which is dissolving the shells of many invertebrates and threatening coral reefs.
If you think that all the excess CO2 will disappear into the oceans it won't. An equilibrium will be achieved eventually with higher level in the water and the atmosphere. These calculations have been made exhaustively by climate change scientists and it is allowed for in projected climate change.
Incidentally the UK's Royal Society is one of many bodies that believes global warming is a real phenomena and man made. So is the American National Academy of Sciences and the Chinese equivalent for that matter. No reputable national science body in any country holds a view to the contrary.
http://royalsociety.org/Joint-Royal-Society-NERC-M
an excerp from recent Royal Society statement
'The Royal Society, in partnership with the Met Office and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), has produced a statement on the science of climate change ahead of the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December 2009. The statement focuses on the scientific evidence which underpins calls for action at Copenhagen, and warns that without co-ordinated international action on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts on the climate and civilisation could be severe.'
A report recently released by the National Academy of Sciences on ocean acidification
http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/index.shtml
An excerpt:
World's Science Academies Say Ocean Acidification Another Reason to Cut Emissions
June, 2009--The InterAcademy Panel, a network of the world's science academies, issued a statement warning that ocean acidification caused by carbon dioxide emissions will have a profound impact on marine ecosystems
On the subject of "how can CO2 absorb/trap heat" maybe people should look at the original research. The original evidence of a 'greenhouse effect' is here: http://onramp.nsdl.org/eserv/onramp:16571/n3.Tynda and read a short explanation of this research here: http://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticle
You will notice that it confirms that water vapour is a very important 'greenhouse gas'. However, in terms of global climate change what we are considering is CHANGE in the relative contribution of each factor to the heat budget of the Earth. Our current climate is as it currently is because of all these 'greenhouse gasses' (that's a good thing), we need to know what the effect of our impact on these factors will have on the future climate. All evidence suggests that human impacts on atmospheric CO2 will result in an increase in average global temperature. Changes in atmospheric CO2 will have the largest impact on climate CHANGE. This is different to saying CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas. I assumed that this distinction was clear - but maybe one shouldn't assume.
wew... a very interesting article
I support
Incidentally. The impact of clouds on the Earth's climate is very very complex. It's nowhere near as simple as saying - "when it's cloudy at night it's warmer". Yes, clouds trap heat that is radiating off of the Earth - hence cloudy nights are warmer nights. BUT, during the day clouds reflect heat away from the Earth. When a cloud goes over the sun it gets cooler. In addition to this cloud formation is incredibly complex. There is more info here - with references to relevant scientific literature: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_
Sorry, couldn't resist. If you want to know more about CO2 in the oceans then have a read of this: http://www2.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id
The lead author if Prof. John Raven, a fellow of the Royal Society - which is one of the highest acolades a scientist can have, short of a Nobel prize. Co2 can only be dissolved at the surface of the ocean, but is mixed into the deep ocean by the very powerful ocean currents. In fact the ocean is a massive sink for a lot of our emissions.
CO2 doesn't freeze anywhere on Earth (at least naturally). The partial pressure of CO2 in the earths atmosphere along with it's low ffreesing point mean that a temperature of -140 would be required.
4x4 - There is plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere to warm the Earth. By about 30 degrees in fact - the Earth would be a much much colder place with no CO2. This is simple physics. Water vapour plays its part - but isn't as big a forcing agent at CO2.
How come almost every other advanced nation can afford cap and trade but poor old America cannot?
Is there some special animus towards protecting the planet or merely profound ignorance of the issues involved?
One of the things that really annoys Europeans is that he US is so backward on so many issues which affect everyone on the planet eg we have the same standard of living but Americans recycle only half the waste that Europe does.
America is like the big fat kid at the table that has never learnt to eat properly. It is not a pretty sight.
France has gone nuclear, Iran is being uncontested in their efforts to do so. And to top it all off, our country is trying to go "green" with wind terbines, solar, and cap and trade. Good grief! I didn't know that Obama's historical election victory meant raising the white flag.
Keep hope alive!!!
I appreciate your high praise. Thank you.
If your going to do something - do it right and give it all you got! I try to live up to that.
Mathematics (something I don't excel at, lol!) teaches us everything can be broken down to simpler terms no matter how complex.
It may be a complex world but it is (each piece of the puzzle) truly black and white. Most answers are simple and right in front of us. Just think!
joer4X4— You know what? I am amazed at the high level on intelligence displayed in this thread. Makes me proud to be on HubPages! You're a sharp dude. Thanks for your analysis.
CO2 in water,is called carbonic acid.Scientists say CO2 accumilates in the oceans.I don't recall them saying how that process works.It,seems to me that gas released at a depth of say a mile or so is compressed just like it is in carbonated water in sodapop.That makes more sense to me as far as CO2 being dissolved in water.I would like to hear a scientists view on how CO2 at the oceans surface would get dissolved in water.If,the CO2 in the atmosphere were to freeze at the poles,then melt at a later date ,like we hear is happening at the northpole now it could concievably end up in the oceans as carbonic acid as the compresed Ice from the glaicer would naturally dissolve releasing the CO2 that was locked under a galacier's weight over the centuries.Scientists say the acidity caused by CO2 dissolved in ocean water is destroying coral reefs,that are mainly calcium carbonate which is a solid white substance formed by a chemical reaction inside the living coral at the bottom of the ocean near the oceans shore I believe.I might be wrong about coral ,just being near the shore,but I do know they have to be near a moving body of water at some depth to feed on passing plankton.The cold ocean water from the earths poles sink to the bottom of the oceans as they move father away from the poles towards the equator and the warm water from the equators move toward the poles.This sets up currents like the one that England gets warming the atmosphere around England.Plankton produce oxygen and many ocean creatures feed on plankton.So,coral remove CO2 from the oceans water as long as conditions are right for coral to grow.From what I recall,they like cooler water.I know also that the ocean currents temperature has a profound effect on the air temperatures above that part of the ocean.That's why England has had at least a century of warm climate temperatures.Or,as we might call it in the greatlakes ,a lake effect.Warm air currents coming from the greatlakes waters off of a coast of one of the greatlakes.Moisture in the air from above a body of water,can cause rainfall,or snowfall inland,from the lake,or ocean,like it does off the west coast of the state of Washington in the U.S.A.Polution of the ocean is whats killing marine life,including the smallest marine life -Plankton which produces more oxygen than all the earths forests combined.El Nino is just such an area of the ocean that has a hugh effect on the climate and ocean life as well it seems.Like red Algae.We sometimes get that kind of algae in the detroit river.It stinks to high heaven.I only recall it happening one year in the 70's. It's caused by the overflow of rainwater into the sewage system and gets into the lakes from the ill designed sewage system up river from detroit.
James A Watkins Hub Author 8 months ago
no body— As you say "These things will sneak up on us and we will all say, "what happened?" or "how did this happen?" to which I would reply, "Laziness, and apathy allowed evil to win!"
Yes, you are so right my brother. We are given our bread and circuses—our food stamps and 1000 channels of television. Top it off with pharmaceuticals—happy pills. The last move will be the government taking over the supply of happy pills—that every fifth person is on now. No more happy pills if you won't go along with the program. Give up your freedom. Surrender your liberty.
And yes, after worldwide communism is established—as American leftists pine for—the elite 5 percent who run everything will all live like Goerge Soros while we all live in squalor. It's the same old story and the same old song and dance, my friend.
Thank you for the compliments. Your comments are excellent. I always enjoy your visits.