It disappoints me that the legislature is attempting to determine this issue.  It must be left to the courts to decide and those decisions abided by rather than overruled by the legislature.   

So goes democracy. It means that citizens must keep their eyes peeled as the coal industry continues to influence legislators. We must counteract that influence with direct communications to our legislators.

The Coal Industry is NOT the only thing influencing the legislature contrary to what a lot of Global Warming cultists would have them believe.  THINKING people are as well.  I think it is reprehensible that an unproven theory continues to sway this much influence over the rights of so many tax paying citizens. Even Al Gore himself is backing away from his original contentions!  For those who read this and are open to learning the facts, as opposed to accepting the fear-mongering hoax being perpetuated on societies globally, take a look at THIS documentary.  It's time more people reevaluate their positions on this issue.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870

emmayus,

I believe the axiom "better living through denial" applies to your post. 

conservationist  

Be Brave. Reevaluate.  Just look at the video!

 If, however, you have evidence contrary to the thesis of this video, do not bother to reply.

You epitomize the reason in this country why there is so much knee jerk reaction to crazy theories like Global Warming.  I DID give you evidence to the contrary in the video link in the previous message.  The problem is, too many people simply WILL NOT pay any attention to anything they don't already believe.  Its sad for you because you will MAKE yourself an unnecessary victim of a fallacy cause whose only intent was to create a tax.  It amazes me you won't even consider factual opposition, even if it means looking out for yourself.  One point in the video proves that Global Warming (caused by sun activity) CAUSES increased CO2, not the other way around.  Research and scientific studies which were approached from an OBJECTIVE standpoint, and not from the standpoint of getting more government grant money.

I don't understand you post.  Are you saying "Don't reply if you have evidence contrary to saying Global Warming is a hoax."?

 Yes, that was my meaning. I have tried three times to post links to contrary evidence, and none of them have passed this web site's editor. I will try again, in my next post, to put it up for scrutiny.

 Here it is. If it gets past the editor this time, have a look at the links and then let's be brave together.

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" was broadcast by Britain's Channel 4 in 2007. When numerous viewers and some of the documentary's interviewees complained about the documentary's polemical design, Britain's Office of Communications (Ofcom) investigated the film and queried its director, who conceded some errors but defended his right to produce a polemic. Ofcom published a partial rebuke: pages 6-22 of http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb114/issue114.pdf

The internet has numerous postings on this documentary, pro and con:

http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

http://www.climateofdenial.net/

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

http://fermiparadox.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/swindlers/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414

My recommendation is to look at peer-reviewed internet sources such as the Encyclopedia of Earth. We need balanced sources, not polemics, to lead us toward sensible public policy with respect to global warming.

http://www.eoearth.org/eoe/about

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Climate_Change_Timeline

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_warming

I haven't replied because today is the first time I have seen your posts!

You are citing the very sources the video impugned!  Don't you get it?  The sources you are using are financed by the government and mandated to come up with the very results they obligingly come up with.  They have to be convincing if they are going to TAX IT!  and it was a GOVERNMENT agency in Britain that challenged the video!

Yes, those posts caught me by surprise, too. I guess the editorial committee needed lots of time to check my bona fides; meantime, I was repeating the post because I couldn't understand why it wasn't getting through. So, my apologies for the repetition.

Do I "get it"? Well, I haven't seen any black helicopters lately, and I admit to having some faith in government agencies and elected representatives. Likewise, I have some faith in peer-reviewed science and in the IPCC. Have governments ever lied? Yes. Have private industries ever lied? Yes. Is money an incentive to lie? Yes. But let's acknowledge that "money" includes not only government taxes, but industry profits. It is certainly more expensive to build a clean coal plant (if such a thing is even possible), and I've seen no guarantees of truly clean coal plants for Holcomb. If we're really prepared to build clean coal plants, I say go for it. In fact, I would recommend a more sensible Kansas location that is closer to water and major rail lines so that we don't add more stresses to the agriculture of western Kansas.

Fraud, deceit, and misinformation regarding carbon dioxide

April 21st, 2009 

You turn to a geophysicist on the subject of climate? If I were you, I would ask him to help me find an oil deposit. As for his analysis of global warming, I see nothing that hasn’t been answered in the previous post. Have you studied the links, or have you just gone shopping for any scientist, regardless of education or experience, who denies anthropogenic global warming?

Carbon Dioxide is indeed harmless until its proportion in the atmosphere raises global temperatures. What, then, is the point of arguing that a submarine crew can breathe 8000 ppm of CO2? Who said that breathability was an issue with global warming? We need to focus on real issues: for example, the likely effects of global warming on Kansas weather and agriculture: http://reporting.journalism.ku.edu/spring07/adler-noland/2007/04/global_warming_threatens_natio.html

http://www.nsfepscor.ku.edu/Presentations/RICE_10-07v3.pdf

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUQME/$File/ks_impct.pdf

Maybe you count on importing more of your food from Canada as their climate becomes more like ours. As oil gets more expensive, too, count on food being more expensive, especially food that is not grown locally.

And burning coal raises other, more immediate issues, such as mercury poisoning. There is evidence that mercury from coal plants correlates with autism in children living nearby (http://www.uthscsa.edu/hscnews/singleformat.asp?newID=2732&SearchID=) and mercury in fish is already a global problem (http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/sources.asp).

I know you’re worried about taxes. The question is not whether we’ll have to pay for bad decisions, but when. It’s an old story: invest now to prevent or mitigate, or pay later for a massive correction.

ge⋅o⋅phys⋅ics

 –noun (used with a singular verb) the branch of geology that deals with the physics of the earth and its atmosphere, including oceanography, seismology, volcanology, and geomagnetism.

Perhaps you had the word confused with geologist.  The point of pumping CO2 into a submarine is because it is an essential component of breathable air.  The point is that a certain amount of CO2 is NECESSARY in the atmosphere and it is no where near toxic levels.

A geophysicist is the one who can tell you how solar radiation and cosmic rays (radiation from space) affect the atmosphere.  Unhindered by solar activity (i.e. solar flares), cosmic radiation causes the water on 2/3 of the earth's surface (the part that's covered by water) to evaporate and form clouds, which keep the planet cooler.  (That's what is happening now--cooling)  When the sun was active and solar winds were high, these winds kept the cosmic radiation from having so much of an effect on the waters of our planet.  As a result, more 'sunshine' got through ad we warmed.   Now that the sun is going into a quiet cycle, earth's temperatures are dropping and have been for nearly eight years already.  Not only that, but even Al Gore's models never suggested the earth's temperature would increase more than a couple of degrees anyway. Had it been true, the impact it would have had on Kansas' environment would meant a longer growing season!

I don't know if you're aware of it or not but the days get shorter starting in the middle of June (the summer solstice).  If a person chose to use the same kind of limited data used in forming the global warming theory, one could make a case by October that if that present trend continued (shorter days), the world would be in total darkness by the following June.  However, the pesky winter solstice comes along later and the cycle reverts back to longer days.  That was an analogy trying to make you see the foolishness of man made global warming.  The data used was limited and skewed and designed to invoke the kind of half baked hysteria needed to impose a lucrative, yet completely bogus tax on the uninformed.  Step into the light.  Pay attention to the latest research.  More and more it is becoming quite clear there was nothing to the man-made angle.

Yes, I agree with your definition. However, expertise includes experience. A geophysicist, like a geologist, is more likely than a climatologist to have experience in the oil, gas, and mining industry, not in climatology. He may be involved in climate research; environmental science is, after all, multi-disciplinary. What do you find when you look for Mr. Hedke's work experience and published research?

His remarks on CO2 indicate a lack of understanding for the relationship between CO2 and global warming, or a polemical intent to steer the debate onto a false issue. Scientists who warn us about anthropogenic global warming do not argue whether we can breathe higher concentrations of CO2 than the 380-some parts per million now in our atmosphere. Their concern is with the greenhouse effect, not breathability. To mitigate global warming, they would like to see us reduce atmospheric CO2 back to about 350 ppm.

Regarding another false issue, who denies that solar radiation, at least the infrared part of it, causes heat, or that it contributes to global warming? The real issue is whether atmospheric CO2 amplifies solar heat and whether higher concentrations of CO2 increase the amplification. You mention seeing "the light," paying attention to "the latest research," and you warn against "skewed data." If you don't trust the IPCC or  government research, do an experiment of your own. Put thermometers into two transparent bottles. Seal outdoor air in the bottles, but add some extra CO2 to one of them. Leave them together in the sunlight. What happens?

Now let's turn to agriculture. Gore reported a conservative 2-degree increase in average temperature, other estimates are as high as 6.4 degrees, and both apply to just the 21st century. You welcome a longer growing season. Does Kansas have enough water and soil nutrients for that? And if the growing season becomes not only longer, but hotter, what will that do to the geography of agriculture?

Photosynthesis can be halted by heat stress. The migration of diseases and pests into new territories add to the problem. Some crops that we depend on will become more expensive as we manage their environments more intensively and artificially, or we'll have to find other crops that tolerate the new environment, assuming that such plants are available. Grains in particular are very sensitive to small changes in average temperature. A shift of one degree can cut production by 10%.

You worry about a "bogus tax on the uninformed." How much will the informed and uninformed pay for food if the earth continues to warm while fossil fuels deplete? How much will we pay for environmental damage from a coal plant that will send most of its electricity to other states while Kansas provides the water and gets what blows from west to east? If similar decisions continue worldwide, another "tax" will be the cost of migration, foreign aid, and military intervention as equatorial and coastal regions of the world succumb to deserts or rising seas. If we circle our wagons and expect those countries to fend for themselves (assuming we can live without their natural resources), we'll spend more on homeland defense and law enforcement. Pay now, or pay more later.

No, I do not trust the IPCC.  They are a bunch of politicians working for the United Nations deliberately misrepresenting facts in order to advance their agenda.  Even AL Gore is backing away from Global Warming.  Even reputable reporting is now calling it Climate Change.  So there is a subtle move away from the original warming theory that you simply cannot deny. Why?  Because more and more true SCIENCE is surfacing that disputes it.

Physics trumps your hysteria.  You offer many opinions and jr high science.  I have posted many sites on this page where you can examine emperical data and their explanations.  You cite a politician as your expert and I give you scientists.  You know nothing of Dennis Hedke, yet you would ignore his scientific insights in favor of Al Gore's.

http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/system/old/GrassrootPerspective/PhysicsTrumps.shtml 

Other science submits that it is natural, sun related warming that is causing the rise in CO2, NOT man.  You can find a link to that in other posts I have made.  Yes!  I say to you  Open your eyes!  Even original supporters of this cause you are so fired up about are leaving the cause!  Global Warming is Bogus!  It's a LIE!  It is political, not science.  You either choose to ignore evidence that might contradict your tightly held beliefs, or you simply cannot comprehend it.  You seem to me to be one of those people whose mind is made up and you do not wish to be confused with facts.

And Thank you to the new governor for allowing the construction of at least ONE new coal plant in Kansas and for not completely falling for the Global Warming Hysteria!

For the latest (2009) summary of government climate change forecasts for the U.S., I recommend "Global Warming Impacts in the United States." The full report is available at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. If you're curious mainly about Kansas, read pages 123-128.

If physics trumps hysteria, then you should be willing to test, personally, whether increasing carbon dioxide amplifies solar heating of the atmosphere. You're not going to illuminate yourself or persuade a discerning reader with misrepresentations and extreme language. For tips on how to do the experiment, you might have a look at NASA's "Glory" website.

When meteorologists can accurately predict the weather (let alone CLIMATE)  even one WEEK in advance, perhaps then I will consider the validity of the Global Warming Hype. 

It's a shame they let people like you vote.

Heartland Institute Comments in Response to Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases

The Heartland Institute submitted the following comments in response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) Notice of Rulemaking entitled Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. For the reasons discussed below, for EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to make this proposed positive finding would be unreasonable, unlawful, and arbitrary and capricious.

(Continue reading)

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/full/25532/_Heartland_Institute_Comments_in_Response_to_Proposed_Endangerment_and_Cause_or_Contribute_Findings_for_Greenhouse_Gases.html

 Ah, the Heartland Institute!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

From same website!

Disputing global warming

In March 2008 the Heartland Institute hosted what was referred to as The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.^[31]

A similar conference was held in March 2009 in New York.^[32][33]

The Third International Conference on Climate Change was held in Washington, DC on June 2, 2009 at the Washington Court Hotel, to "call attention to widespread dissent to the asserted 'consensus' on various aspects of climate change and global warming," according to Heartland's announcement of the event. "The conference's theme will be Climate Change: Scientific Debate and Economic Analysis. The theme reflects the fact that the scientific debate is not over and that economic analysis is more important than ever, now that legislation is being seriously considered. The real science and economics of climate change support the view that global warming is not a crisis and that immediate action to reduce emissions is not necessary. This is, in fact, the emerging consensus view of scientists outside the IPCC and most economists outside environmental advocacy groups," Heartland's website states. ^[34]

Try reading your own sources.

Perhaps you should read your own sources!   It agrees with ME!

Disputing global warming

In March 2008 the Heartland Institute hosted what was referred to as The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.^[31]

A similar conference was held in March 2009 in New York.^[32][33]

The Third International Conference on Climate Change was held in Washington, DC on June 2, 2009 at the Washington Court Hotel, to "call attention to widespread dissent to the asserted 'consensus' on various aspects of climate change and global warming," according to Heartland's announcement of the event. "The conference's theme will be Climate Change: Scientific Debate and Economic Analysis. The theme reflects the fact that the scientific debate is not over and that economic analysis is more important than ever, now that legislation is being seriously considered. The real science and economics of climate change support the view that global warming is not a crisis and that immediate action to reduce emissions is not necessary. This is, in fact, the emerging consensus view of scientists outside the IPCC and most economists outside environmental advocacy groups," Heartland's website states. ^[34]

 Legislators make 'LAW', not the 'COURTS' and 'Legislators' are elected by the 'People' to whom they represent.  What you are suggesting is exactly what the 'People' don't want.  The 'Courts' are suppose to uphold the 'LAW', not make 'LAW' from the 'Bench'.  Cap'n Trade was passed in the House in Washington.  It has 'NOT' become 'LAW' and therefore, for the EPA to come into our State and put a 'Halt' on our 'Economy', to me, is way out of line.  As I see it, the Federal Government has over-reached its boundaries and '2007 House Bill 2412' is appropiate and should be supported.

conservationist:

It disappoints me that the legislature is attempting to determine this issue.  It must be left to the courts to decide and those decisions abided by rather than overruled by the legislature.   

 Legislators make 'Law', not the 'Courts' and 'Legislators' are elected by the 'People' to whom they represent.  What you are suggesting is exactly what the 'People' don't want.  The 'Courts' are suppose to uphold the 'LAW', not make 'LAW' from the 'Bench'.  Cap'n Trade was passed in the House in Washington.  It has 'NOT' become 'LAW' and therefore, for the EPA to come into our State and put a 'Halt' on our 'Economy'. to me, is way out of line.  As I see it, the Federal Government has over-reached its boundaries and '2007 House Bill 2412' is appropiate and should be supported.

Grandamr, you are right.  The Federal Government has definitely overstepped its authority.

Grandmar, you need to get involved with the 10th Amendment people.

These are the people who are trying to stand up to the usurpation of Federal Power over the states and we are trying to stop them!

There is a perception that Republicans put selfish interests first, public good second. My own experience has been that the self vs. public divide cuts across party lines. The most recent example is an alliance between Senators John Kerry, a Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican, to promote climate change legislation. I recommend this article to those whose minds remain open: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

It would be nice if world scientists would AGREE about the nature and cause of Global Warming BEFORE we go putting a tax on a small percentage of a naturally occurring gas in the atmoshphere.  This is a scam, to justify a tax that will not be used for any type of green energy!  But it will help with a lot of reelection campaigns!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm

emmayus:

It would be nice if world scientists would AGREE about the nature and cause of Global Warming BEFORE we go putting a tax on a small percentage of a naturally occurring gas in the atmoshphere.  This is a scam, to justify a tax that will not be used for any type of green energy!  But it will help with a lot of reelection campaigns!

In fact, the more experienced a scientist is in climate research, the more agreement you will find. Among climatologists who are active, published researchers on the field, 96.2% answer “risen” to Question 1, and 97.4% answer “yes” to Question 2:

Question 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

Question 2.  Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Among scientists of all disciplines, 90% answer “risen” to Question 1, and 82% answer “yes” to Question 2. The only scientists who, as a group, are skeptical in their responses to Question 2 (not to Question 1) are “economic geologists” (i.e., the fossil fuel industry): only 47% of those answer “yes” to Question 2. Among meteorologists, whose expertise is in short-term forecasting, 64% answer “yes” to Question 2. ( http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf ).

The real scam here is the denial of anthropogenic global warming by representatives of the fossil fuel industry. The real economic issue is whether this generation will share the inevitable cost of global warming with the next generation--whether we pass along a debt that our children will be forced to pay.

Thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.

I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU GLOBAL WARMING WAS ALL A LIE!  It's all coming to light now.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/69141-inhofe-to-call-for-hearing-into-cru-un-climate-change-research?tmpl=component&print=1&page=

Are you on the Flint Hills Center's board of directors? I offer results of an actual survey of scientists on this subject and must wait weeks for an editorial review. You post links to allegedly pirated emails and sail right through. Now I'm getting paranoid!

Just a few reputable sources out of the millions now appearing all over the world wide web.   Man Made Global Warming was a fraud all along.  Just as I have been telling you.  It never made sense in the first place and I don't understand how so many people fell for it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/climategate_holdren_email/2009/11/27/291545.html

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4502&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+(ClimateRealists+News+Blog)