the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Do it — Or Else

Posted by Jeff Id on April 10, 2010

This is a huge story, probably as big as Climategate but certain to get little press.  After all, there is less proof to present.  This is not just another day in world politics.  Sure corruption happens, but we’ve just learned how Copenhagen global government was attempted to be forced onto the rest of the world.

Climate aid threat to countries that refuse to back Copenhagen accord

The pressure on poor countries to support the US, EU and UK-brokered Copenhagen accord came as 190 countries resumed UN climate talks in Bonn in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion.

“The pressure to back the west has been intense,” said a senior African diplomat. “It was done at a very high level and nothing was written down. It was made very clear by the EU, UK, France and the US that if they did not back them then they would suffer.”

If you are a poor country, you naturally have more intelligence than most poor citizens and you recognize that dependence on outside money is a form of enslavement. In most cases, the leaders of poor countries have been using the technique on their own citizens for decades. They don’t want the money, but  for most poor countries in this world, it is too late.  Some political predecessor already went for the cash.  In many cases, the small countries cannot give up the money which feeds systems that the previous agreements put in place.  In a huge feat of kindness, generosity and the hope to help their fellow citizen, the wonderous Obama/global government flatly threatened to take their money away if they didn’t vote for this policy.  They also offered new money for them if they do vote for it.  Of course non-idiots know, the new money could be taken away on a non-compliance whim later.

And the evidence of the threat being carried out is here:

Yesterday it emerged that the US is to cut climate aid to Bolivia, Ecuador and other countries who have refused to sign up to the accord. But the outgoing UN climate change chief, Yvo de Boer, said: “Bolivia is losing $2.5m in climate funds. That’s about what the presidential palace pays for toilet paper a year. Bullying is not an effective instrument.”

Now of course we would have to be idiots to believe we threatened Bolivia with 2.5 million – for god’s sakes that would be stupid.  This was the warning shot, but it was also unequivocal proof of the corrupt forcing of votes on a global scale as well.  Why take ‘small’ money away if nobody in the world has been taking any action whatsoever with respect to Copenhagen either???  And the piece of crap Boer want’s us to fall for it:

To the rest of the Earthlings I write — welcome to Chicago politics.

The threat has soft words behind it in some cases

Earlier this year, Karl Falkenberg, director-general for environment at the European Commission, signalled that countries that did not fully support the accord might not qualify for future funds. “It is not money for free, we are helping developing countries to make more of an effort than they could do on their own.”

Of course the agreement Karl Marx Falkenberg, is discussing HASN’T BEEN ENACTED BY ANYONE.   NOBODY HAS TAKEN A SINGLE STEP WITH RESPECT TO COPENHAGEN.  Sorry, it pisses me off but think about it….  Bolivia is being punished in advance of any signed legal agreement by NON-PUNISHED countries, with a piece of paper that does nothing for climate yet empowers a small group of people over the global population.

It’s all lies, and they are completely transparent, of course you have to be able to read to see it.

Some signatories will be richly rewarded for backing the weak agreement. Ethiopia expects to earn nearly $1bn from climate change funds. However, 90 poor countries have refused to associate with it, mostly arguing it will not reduce emissions enough to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Because Etheopia has the government that we should be propping up, Right?!!

Ok, it pissed me off again, sorry.  A commenter recently left some opinion that Copenhagen wasn’t about world government and control, and that sent me off.  How naive can humans be.  My god, they are telling us exactly what they are doing folks.

Wake up — or else.

In democracy, representatives are supposed to vote for the best interests of their constituents.  Nobody can reasonably pretend that the Copenhagen power grab is a democracy, however these are representatives at the accord ARE claiming and providing PROOF of extortion and abuse of power to force cooperation.  Decisions are not made regarding what is in their or their citizens best interest, but rather, do it or else!!

66 Responses to “Do it — Or Else”

  1. Jeff Id said

    “There was definite strong-arming of countries. A lot were left in no doubt that there would be repercussions if they did not associate themselves with the accord,” said Saleemul Huq, of the International Institute for Environment and Development, in London.

  2. kan said

    “My god, they are telling us exactly what they are doing folks.”

    Yep, and Obama told us exactly what he would do as President, by past actions more than the words.

    Nobody seemed to be listening……or watching.

  3. ArndB said

    It is a very serious problem and despite Climategate, it will get worst, as it will be better tuned, more secretive, and harsher repercussion employed. Ringing the alarm bells has my full sympathy. But I admit that I have also a lot of problems with ‘us’, the so called sceptics. For twenty years I have the impression we react only to mainstream of ‘climate scientist’ in IPCC style, but do to little to ask what is the weather system all about, in a way I formulated it already almost two decades ago: “CLIMATE is the continuation of the ocean by other means.” http://www.whatisclimate.com/ Instead we accept that the important discussion on the protection of the atmosphere is based on completely insufficient or stupid terminology (see: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/ ). In my view the oceans and seas determine the physic-dynamics of the atmosphere, and that any anthropogenic interference in the oceanic structure is far reaching and will run its own course. No chance to look for solutions as envisaged with CO2. How easy humans can produce a very noticeable impact can be demonstrated, for example, along the three extreme cold winters in Europe, 1939/40, 1940/41, and 1941/42, which came about with a devastating naval war in Europe’s water (details here: http://climate-ocean.com/). Even if naval war contributed only a small portion towards the coldest winters for over 100 years during WWII, the whole discussion could and would change dramatically, and would be a big help to countries that do not like to be pressured, patronized, or even blackmailed.
    Remaining with regards
    Arnd Bernaerts

  4. DeWitt Payne said

    The same sort of thing happened with the 55 mph speed limit. If states didn’t pass a statewide 55 mph speed limit their share of the federal highway money would be cut. Give control of your money to someone and you’re in their power.

  5. I despise these threats as much as you.

    I note with some irony, however, as I read this post I was hit with an Ad to Stop the Canadian Seal Hunt. Canadian seal hunters need to earn a living, too.

  6. John F. Pittman said

    As a report posted on WUWT maintained, the environmental activists (not the professionals) “believe” they have the “right” to cheat because they have made the “noble cause sacrifice”. At this point, the “noble cause corruption” illuminated in the peer reveiwed sociological/criminalogical publications begs for attention. If one was to believe that they, themselves had a right to cheat because they, themselves had made the noble sacrifice, what atrocity would they, themselves not be wiiling to make? My answer is here http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/over-the-top/ . When a most documented peace organization is willing to threaten individuals with personal violence rather than the governments and corporations that they have historically targeted, all in the name of the cause, just what is beyond these people? Unfortunately history has shown that little is beyond the pale for such.

    For those who do not know me, JeffID and I probably have cancelled each others national presidential votes for decades, probably senatorial and House votes indirectly, as well. This is a truly sad day for liberals such as I. Combined with Hansen’s repeated uneconomic economic analysis http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/obamas-second-chance-on-c_b_525567.html , this is a sad day. For those who think his economic analysis is correct, please realize if it does not cost consumers it cannot cost business. If it does not cost business, it cannot be real.

    Short version, it cannot be real.

    It is truly a shame. I have spent the past 25 years trying to make sure that we, as succesful humans, have done our part to keep the environment clean and citizens employed. To see it used as just a tactic in a power struggle, is truly gobsmacking.

    Jeff pointed out how corrupt it is. I want to point out that this is not what environmental professionals envisioned when they helped empower the environmental movement. To be reduced to thuggery!

    As Shakespeare opined “Lilies that fester smell worse than weeds!” The stench of this thuggery is odorious indeed.

    Not that MSM will give a damn.

    Perhaps I should start a support group, “liberals forced to watch FOXX such that they get at least a little bit of truth TM.”

  7. Motorhead said

    Kan, posting above said ‘Nobody seemed to be listening or watching.’

    You are somewhat right in regards to the election of Obama. A couple of points:

    1) The majority of US media (all Liberals) went into overdrive to get Obama elected. This included fluff story after fluff story for Obama, attacks on Republicans (well-deserved at that point), and absolutely NO real reporting on who this guy Obama really was.

    2) Liberal voters knew damned well what they were putting into office: a fellow Liberal and a Marxist. They still love it because they too hate God, guns, American oil, the military and Jews. Additionally, they support illegal immigration, more taxes, more government, more abortion, and a weakened United States that is simply another member of the ‘global village’ taking direct orders from a world body like the UN.

    3) A huge number of uneducated and uninformed minority voters turned out for Obama – because he was black. It stands that a majority of them neither knew what they were putting into office nor did they care – as long as it wasn’t Republican or white any more. Additionally, as a whole slew of videos (easily found on YouTube) will show, many of them believed they were putting a man into power who would give them lots of free things in life.

    Fortunately, this attitude of no one listening or watching when it came to the environmentalist wackos was pretty much true as many polls showed people were really eating this stuff up (global warming/climate change). Then, thank God in heaven, ClimateGate happened. Now the dynamic has changed – but mostly at the level of the (excuse the expression) proletariat. The bourgeoise have way too much money tied up in ‘green’ contracts and carbon credits to abandon ship so fast. Remember, the whole environmentalist movement is driven by huge sums of money. So they’re going to do what they can to keep it going. The solution is to vote as many of them out of power and replace them with commonsense Conservatives.

  8. John F. Pittman said

    Motorhead:
    Your statement “They still love it because they too hate God, guns, American oil, the military and Jews” is bigoted. Please restate.

    I am liberal, though, not that I am all liberals. I do not hate God, guns (I own 4 firearms), the military, or Jews.

    Your statement of “who Obama really was” panders to the thought that we are as stupid or bigoted as you are.

    You state “Liberal voters knew damned well what they were putting into office: a fellow Liberal and a Marxist” So not only are you bigoted, but psychic as well. Please forgive me for being skeptical.

    You state “A huge number of uneducated and uninformed minority voters turned out for Obama – because he was black” Damn! and you can’t count either! You state your own refutation: they are a minority, yet are a huge number?!? What a moronic statement!

    You state “It stands that a majority of them neither knew what they were putting into office nor did they care – as long as it wasn’t Republican or white any more.” Damn! Onc again you can’t count!!!

    You state “Then, thank God in heaven, ClimateGate happened” As though it had nothing to do with JeffID and all the others who were trying to determine where the science actually lay??

    You state “Remember, the whole environmentalist movement is driven by huge sums of money” Well, I have been an environmental professional for close to 25 years, and I have never recieved these huge sums of money. Not only that, but I and all the other professionals I know have been busy trying to keep all sorts of nasty shit from killing people or causing them sickness or problems. Yet despite your ill-informed opinion, we are making sure, although, the “Liberals” don’t want to admit it, that the water you drink, the soil you need for food, and the air you breathe is better than it was only a few years ago.

    And for this effort, we have a bigoted asshole’s contempt??

    Well, I welcome such contempt. I went into the environmental field in order to accomplish good things. And I have.

    Motorhead, all I see you accomplish is to piss off well meaning and accomplished professionals. If you think this advances your cause, your more full of shit than even I would credit you for!

    Sorry, JeffID, this post is so full of it, I could have gone on for a couple of more pages. It is cases like this That I agree with those who complain of the political (in this case bizzare) polemics.

    Though, as you do know me, I respect your rules and tolerence, even for my own diatribe. If you feel a need to snip, have at it, but I think and maintain that motorhead has gone beyond the pale.

  9. Raven said

    It worth remembering that developing countries opposed the climate agreements because they want the rich countries to commit economic suicide and hand whatever is left of their wealth after the suicide to the UN for distribution to them.

    IOW. For those of us who care about rational climate policy developing countries are NOT our allies.

  10. Derek said

    Posts 6, 7, and 8. – interesting posts there is something in all of them that I agree and disagree with. However.

    THE answer to THE problem of AGW is simple.

    DO NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY, ANYWHERE
    ADVOCATING AGW “JUSTIFIED” POLICIES.

    AGW is a lie, do you knowingly vote for liars. ?

  11. Dagfinn said

    I tried to find out what the heck “climate aid” means, and at the top of my Google search I got this interesting piece about the “murky concept”: http://aidwatchers.com/2009/12/what-exactly-is-%E2%80%9Cclimate-aid%E2%80%9D/

    Now, if “climate aid” is money to be spent on “climate”, the threats follow logically from the way the situation has been defined. If countries are not willing commit to implementing the measures that the money is supposed to be used for, then logically they should not receive the money.

    I’m not saying it’s right, just that it’s logical. The problem is built into the system, and you cannot prove that withdrawing these funds is an attempt to force them into compliance.

  12. Sera said

    Oligarchy.

  13. Motorhead said
    April 10, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    Very unfortunate but he is right on 90%
    and I don’t see he is a racist per say,
    we see that across the USA that the way he won was a soft press(fluffy)
    and the urban county s voted for him and was the dem’s very effective targit
    to change the votes in just a few county’s across the country.

    John F. Pittman said
    April 11, 2010 at 12:16 am

    the (racist card) is what they have been pulling out to try to stifle disagreement with O’Bama’s policy’s IE I disagree so therefore I am a racist, unfortunate you don’t know if I am white or black on the blogg’s and some of the blacks on the conservative ticket are getting accused of this.

    and how did you vote? the liberal mccain or the socialist O’bama?

    we already have a ten division world by telephone numbers. just a note.

  14. Dagfinn said

    The US politics discussion is somewhat difficult for me as a European to follow, but I think this is interesting and relevant: Climate McCarthyism Part 3: The Hyper-Partisan Mind

  15. Peter of Sydney said

    This is just another step in the eventual formation of the Orwellian society. George Orwell as most know was a futurist, and he got it pretty much right. Of course most people thought he was predicting it would happen in 1984. He picked that year because he wrote the book in 1948 and just decided to swap the last two digits. So, the year is irrelevant as far as he was concerned. He portrayed how society could develop. As it turns out he’s pretty much on the mark. Give it time, most if not all of his predictions will come true. Some already have. Rudd and Obama are excellent candidates to proceed with the next stages. If it were Howard and Bush, the public would not stand for it. But because it’s smooth talking Rudd and Obama, it’s OK to do exactly what Howard and Bush could never achieve without resistance. Somehow much of the public are too stupid to see this. Those who do understand can’t do a dam thing about it for a number of reasons. One, they are powerless, not just because there are too few of them, but also because the rest of the public would look upon them as odd or twisted even if they did. So, just enjoy the ride as best you can as the world is turned upside down by leaders who I wouldn’t event trust to look after my dog (if I had one) let alone a country.

  16. STEPHEN PARKER said

    Here in the uk, we cant change a thing. All the political parties are virtually the same, we are ruled by unelected european socialists.And its very easy to spend other peoples money.True science is subverted to milk the taxpayer in the name of saving the world, instead of the money being spent on researching true AFFORDABLE non fossil fuels.
    Here is the personal bit.You know why the uk and europe is in such a mess?.Up until about 20 years ago you had people in politics that knew about life, that had been through the war and the 50’s and knew what real progress was. Now you have almost universily, middle class social science graduates who have never wanted for anything and have never had a proper job in thier lives, they only mix with people like themselves so have no concept of reality.
    One good example is fuel duty .London dwelling full expenced for all travel,train,boat or plane, politians raise the duty with the excuse of saving the planet.What about people who live where there is no public transport, what about the pensioner on a fixed income?Its the erosion of a basic democratic right in this country,free movement in your own country Whats a couple of pennies to the rich?. Congestion will soon be solved, for only the rich and political class will be able to afford to drive soon.Rant over.

  17. ArndB said

    # Dagfinn said April 11, 2010 at 1:41 am
    What means “Climate aid” ?

    CLIMATE is a layman’s term used for several thousand years Science is using the term as well, but has not been able to define it in a scientifically reasonable manner (# Comment 10).

    <<<IPCC says CLIMATE in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.<<<<

    'Climate aid' could therefore mean, e.g. :
    ___average weather aid;
    ___aid for statistical mean
    ___aid for relevant quantities over months or millions of years.

    Simple conclusion:
    (1) “average weather” remains average weather regardless of the name given.
    (2) A science which is not able to define what they are talking about lacks academic competence.

  18. ArndB said

    #16; Sorry
    reference is Comment 3;
    __ArndB said April 10, 2010 at 10:22 pm

  19. Otter said

    pittman is your typical liberal: all vitriol and NO substance. Especially NO common sense.

  20. michel said

    Oh dear, here we go again! World Government, Obama the Marxist, Gun Control even! God makes an appearance too. And the Jews no less!!

    Folks, AGW is a mistaken scientific hypothesis. Its decisive refutation will lead to some good, our understanding of climate will have increased.

    But the events being described here are ordinary human behavior when trying to get a measure through a body. The same thing happens every week in every City Hall. In every State legislature. In every committee. This is not about some conspiracy to install world government. Its about a bunch of people who believe, mistakenly, in a coming environmental catastrophe, trying and failing to convince and coerce the world they should sign up to actions.

    And it is working! The process, that is. They are not convincing anyone. We need more, not less, of this. Its only by this sort of process that everyone finds out, (a) its not well enough established (b) even if it were, the measures everyone is being asked to sign up to will not be effective in terms of the theory (c) they are going to cost a fortune and have terrible risk/reward ratios.

    Personally, I am very pleased to discover that lots of pressure has been brought to bear, and still more pleased to discover how ineffective it has been. Its restoring my faith in human reason. People simply will not buy in to silly expensive proposals, and their refusal has impacts on the advocates, and eventually this thing will disintegrate after another session in some tropical paradise where more ineffective and expensive measures can be debated and rejected. I am eagerly looking forward to Copenhagen II, and you all should be too.

    I wish I could prove my righteousness, and the righteousness of this point of view, by also reporting how many guns I have. If it helps, I have several bill hooks, short and long handled, and a couple of axes. Oh, and a wicked looking kris. Will that do?

  21. Jeff Id said

    #8 I don’t recall ever even slightly considering snipping your comments.

    #19, It’s not about ‘normal human behavior’. As always, I find little to agree with and wonder how a person can be wrong on so many points. This behavior, is the reason I believe in limited government. Politicians always have motivations outside of the stated intent. These motivations in a democracy (on average) unbalance voting for the right thing. It’s highly destructive when democracies try to operate with the detailed control of a socialist country, and it’s completely unnecessary.

    Here they are, accused straight out of bribery and extortion – by global politician – and your response is a shoulder shrug???

    I provided you a link to the Copenhagen proposal presented before the big show. It flatly states the mechanisms of taxation, regulation, who get’s, who pays, and you still mock the fact that Copenhagen is about global government. Just what aspects of government are missing before you agree?

    Even on global warming we disagree, radiative physics is real.That’s why you can’t run around saying AGW is mistaken. You can say it’s exaggerated, politicized, corrupted and the solution proposed is crap but NOT mistaken.

    Read this:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/it-is-what-it-is-and-the-god-of-physics-will-have-it-no-other-way/

  22. John F. Pittman said

    Luke: I voted for McCain because Obama made too many expensive promises. And many of them are not help, they are give aways for votes. I do not vote for democrats when they pander poor or minorities for votes by taxing me; I do not vote for republicans when they vote to reduce rich people’s taxes in order to get deals and cash from their rich friends. I don’t care if you are white or black. I don’t see anyone getting stifled. I have seen and heard politicians claim that persons who oppose Obama’s policy due to his being black. We have such from our state, Clyburn House whip. We also have “you lie!” Wilson (my district)from my state. I think both can speak for themselves and each gets about the same reaction from the general popuation; about 15 seconds of attention on the nightly news once in a while.

  23. J. Peden said

    and how did you vote? the liberal mccain or the socialist O’bama?

    For a lot of people – not me – it was a tough call since McCain was merely “liberal lite”/not a conservative, and the MSM did not vet Obama – who was at least a fairly obvious “Progressive” or “latte Communist” almost from the beginning of his run for President – who otherwise wouldn’t have even been nominated.

    The average person thought any dem or repub nominee would be kind of within the bounds of normalcy for a U.S. President. Not!

    But by now it’s becoming clear to more and more people that the Commie Thug type m.o. is the Obama adm., enc., signature, aimed at both looting anything and everything available and controlling by establishing the ultimate of a classist society, the Communist Slave State.

    It’s not hopeless. Some in the U.S. even wanted Obama’s election to happen in order to precipitate a showdown. And the “Teapartier’s” numbers are growing almost beyond anyone’s wildest hope.

    We “Teapartiers” don’t actually need a majority, but we might even get that, given that here in the U.S. both “independents” and many persistent “liberals” are not as dumb as the “Progressives/Communists” envision, and are instead smarter than the “Progressives”, who are themselves essentially only a pre-Enlightenment, subrational Cult.

    “Liberals” especially should be coming to realize more and more that the term has been hijacked by Progressive-Communist word games and doesn’t mean what it used to.

    I had trouble with that fact for a while until I realized that I could simply call myself a “Classical Liberal”.

    At any rate, things are developing well for the “showdown”, imo, even though it wasn’t my 1st choice, and recognizing the Obama, enc., m.o. “signature” could be an important force, as well as sticking it right onto to very personnas of these Communists as a permanent, known feature.

    Among other things, I think elected Democrats are about to be wetting their pants.

  24. Raven said

    A McCain win would have been a disaster.

    A healthy democracy needs a changing of the guard. It cleans house and reminds voters that talk is easy when one is in opposition and not able to do anything.

    Obama winning + a majority house and senate + the dems reform agenda remind people why the founders of the republic believed in checks and balances

    The republicans will likely be disappointed in Nov but should win enough to restore the checks and balances.

  25. Actually Thoughtful said

    It appears that most commentators (thanks to #20 and #24 for a more nuanced view) are buying into the idea that any effort to reduce CO2 is bad bad bad.

    The notion that various governments reducing their monetary aid to 3rd world governments that don’t conform to the desired climate policies is not only NOT one world government, it is EXACTLY what these same commentators demand of our government (the “not one penny of MY tax dollars to bribe 3rd world countries on CO2″ theme that comes up again and again on skeptic blogs).

    So which is it fellas?

    And is Obama et. al. an inept and incompetent fool? Or is he using the financial tools at his disposal to accomplish the policy goals he was elected to do?

    I am just trying to figure out how normal, standard, typical run-of-the-mill international policy tools (tying aid to the desired policy) are now so evil. This is done on speed limits by the feds to the state, this is done by state governments city governments. This is done by employers to employees. As a business owner, this is done by my customers to me (I will pay you for this, I won’t for that).

    I do understand the idealistic sentiments behind this, but really, are the posters supporting this too idealistic to have a voice in policy discussions?

    At some point, you have to move off your idealism and be part of the practical conversation. Or stay on your idealistic high horse and preserve your right to complain, but not your right to be taken seriously.

  26. Jeff Id said

    #25 or we can explain yet again, that the fact that CO2 stays resident for thousands of years, means that the only way to fix the problem is to invent new technology. Any loads on society and industry which prevent or slow our arrival at that solution are likely bad in all cases.

    You try to marginalize our views by calling them idealistic, however, from my perspective you are the idealist, always searching for the perfect regulation despite seeing example after example of failed world governments. Obama is a fool in that like so many, he believes government and regulation will solve the worlds troubles. I personally believe the opposite, free people will solve them, if we’re allowed. In fact America proved it just by getting the foot of government off our necks. And I wish to god that people would at least consider that is a reasonable and non-idealistic possibility. At least consider that what I write could be right.

    Where are the big disasters?? Where are the hurricanes, drought, huge temp rises…. They don’t exist.. The damage is a lie. This whole discussion takes us away from important environmental issues like chemicals, drinking water and forest management. The fact that elitists love the nuance of the regulation and hope for some “balanced” compromise means nothing. These ‘answers’ represent nothing but baby steps heading away from where we should be going.

    Government is not the answer to solve AGW, people are, technology is and despite all the reasoned arguments to the contrary government doesn’t make technology!! Whether people take me or other conservatives seriously is not a concern of mine, that is up to you.

    It is because of that opinion that policy discussions of the type presented at Copenhagen are 100% unwelcome and never will be.

  27. Actually Thoughtful said

    Jeff,
    As usual the radically different approaches we follow in our thinking mask some agreement on practical policies. For example:

    #25 or we can explain yet again, that the fact that CO2 stays resident for thousands of years, means that the only way to fix the problem is to invent new technology. Any loads on society and industry which prevent or slow our arrival at that solution are likely bad in all cases.

    Of course the technology I would recommend is the solar thermal (space conditioning) wind and solar PV (electricity) that is ALREADY here and working just fine (skeptical diatribes aside – I work in this field and we save our customers real money every day. The technology works). Add to that some up-and-coming technologies that seem promising like algae for liquid fuels. Throw in a few nukes to accomplish the reduction goals.

    BTW -I found this on RC – notable in that it appears to agree with skeptical comments in this area:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/climate-change-commitments/

  28. Jeff Id said

    #27, Solar electric doesn’t work yet. It’s a massive cost burden for a non-working return. It is getting closer so if you way work on improving solar performance and battery storage, we can agree.

    Implementation adds cost and therefore doesn’t make sense. If I’m wrong and you can say it saves cost, then you don’t need any regulation or agreement from me, because people will buy it anyway.

    Algae, does not work at all and it never will, it is a false technology. The best algae is claimed to be 6% efficient with a theoretical limit at around 9% and only a portion of that ends up in usable material. Run some calcs starting from the basic photosynthetic efficiency and you’ll figure it out. Biofuel is the worst of all worlds.

  29. Ruhroh said

    Jeff;

    Last time I checked, the manufacture of a silicon photovoltaic cell consumes 5 years worth of the eventual maximum solar power output, or more depending on suboptimal siting/installation/maintenance.

    And to my understanding, the good folks in China are burning some of the coal we so thoughtfully export, to generate that power.

    Not sure about how the ‘efficiency’ numbers play into this calculation, but that last time I checked the .gov solar site, they tended to default to some fairly optimistic values within the wide ranges of structural inefficiencies.
    (i.e., dirty surfaces, shading, MPP tracking, etc.)…

    Another topic rife with euphemisms and overstated upside, amenable to debunking by straightforward engineering analysis, if you’re in the mood.

    I mean, who else is going to do it correctly, if not the AirVent?

    RR

    OT
    In case this is your first son, remember the key rule;
    keep your mouth shut during diaper changes…

  30. curious said

    Re: energy policy to stimulate technological development – Stephen Chu’s presentation from Energy Information Agency conference 6 April 2010 with some comments and commentary here:

    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6364

    SC gives his view on AGW at around 21:00min and the need for a global response at around 23:30min.

  31. frank.bi said

    Actually Thoughtful:

    The notion that various governments reducing their monetary aid to 3rd world governments that don’t conform to the desired climate policies is not only NOT one world government, it is EXACTLY what these same commentators demand of our government (the “not one penny of MY tax dollars to bribe 3rd world countries on CO2″ theme that comes up again and again on skeptic blogs).

    So which is it fellas?

    Yeah, indeed. Because a few months ago Jeff Id was complaining about how his hard-earned American money is going to be unfairly redistributed to these poor countries.

    Yet, when he hears that this money won’t be redistributed, he’s … angry because of that?

    Seriously, what do you really want, Jeff Id? Are you adamant about keeping your hard-earned American money from wealth redistribution, or do you suddenly feel great pity for poor people in Africa? Which is it?

  32. KPO said

    Michel said: April 11, 2010 at 4:54 am
    Well to be honest, I’m not so sure you should be so sure. Have a gander at these snippets.http://green-agenda.com

  33. John F. Pittman said

    Hey Jeff, seen this at WUWT. It goes with this thread. The two combined could be used as a legal hoist to force signing, otherwise you are guilty of ecocide. Here = http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/11/climate-craziness-of-the-week-british-campaigner-urges-un-to-accept-ecocide-as-international-crime-proposal-to-declare-mass-destruction-of-ecosystems-a-crime-on-a-par-with-genocide/

    Note one of the legal theories that we see continue by the watermelon crowd; the threat (we the ecofascists get to determine its application) is equal to the reality. They have a logic train to equate resourse use with a threat of war. Resource use is what makes our civilization go. You ought to read some of the commie slant crap. It makes me long for intelligent humans. The communists were, and are, the worst of earth’s stewards. And the watermelons want us to try to form an international community based on a system that failed miserably. It boggles the mind.

  34. Mark T said

    Ruhroh said
    April 11, 2010 at 2:51 pm
    Jeff;

    keep your mouth shut during diaper changes…

    Yes, and this has absolutely nothing to do with what you might say.

    Mark

  35. Mark T said

    Actually Thoughtful said
    April 11, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    I work in this field and we save our customers real money every day

    Only because of government subsidy, both to the consumer and the manufacturers. Nor does it work well enough to make it a good option for the masses – places with high levels of cloud cover, densely packed urban areas (not enough power per square meter even with perfect technology), etc.

    You work “in the field” and you don’t even know this. Amazing.

    Mark

  36. Peter Dunford said

    As a cynic I am completely unsurprised by this. There has been a long history of major western governments using “aid” to advance their agendas, or assist their large companies. In order not to attract the wrong attention I will not name specific examples. Many of us have been quite happy that, if aid must be given, our companies should be the beneficiary of any specialised knowledge and technology being provided.

    This long common practice is simply being bent to the new agenda. It’s not devastating, it’s not remarkable, it’s not brazen, it’s what we should expect.

    At least this kind of storey gives us another response to throw at those poor, maligned, hardworking, desperately honest climate scientists working against the odds to get the message out in the face of that well funded denial machine.

    Sometimes I’m not sure they realise how successful they’ve been. (Other times I think they know, but they keep up the pretense to protect the weak areas from enemy fire.) They won. We’re no-where near convincing any potential government of the main western nations of the holes. They’re getting everything they want, just one small step at a time, and because they bought into their own hype, far too slowly.

    This isn’t a storey. Sorry, it’s just business as usual.

  37. Mark T said

    Actually Thougtless did get something right: everyone in here should be rather peeved that we’re giving these countries money in the first place. Where he missed the boat, however, is that it’s not a sudden revelation to us that they are receiving money. We know. Duh. We (at least me) were mad when it started. What makes this bad is now they are using it to control, proving exactly what we think about how they (our government) operate. They are thugs, extortionists in all but name. If a private citizen were to behave the same way, he would be jailed. Being elected should not be a pass to commit felonies.

    Mark

  38. TGSG said

    They are thugs, extortionists in all but name. If a private citizen were to behave the same way, he would be jailed. Being elected should not be a pass to commit felonies.

    hear hear

    yes it’s been business as usual, but for far too many years. It has to stop.

  39. JAE said

    Actually unthoughtful, 27:

    “Of course the technology I would recommend is the solar thermal (space conditioning) wind and solar PV (electricity) that is ALREADY here and working just fine (skeptical diatribes aside – I work in this field and we save our customers real money every day. The technology works). Add to that some up-and-coming technologies that seem promising like algae for liquid fuels. Throw in a few nukes to accomplish the reduction goals.”

    What Jeff said in 28. Plus, I perceive you as a hopeless dreamer and someone who does not have a background in science. In short, a believer in magic. You should do some serious reading here: http://masterresource.org/

  40. Actually Thoughtful said

    Only because of government subsidy, both to the consumer and the manufacturers. Nor does it work well enough to make it a good option for the masses – places with high levels of cloud cover, densely packed urban areas (not enough power per square meter even with perfect technology)

    Wrong. As is been your trend of late. I design and install solar thermal systems. That work. That save my customers thousands of dollars. Government tax credits and utility incentives do make the sales easier (if you want to eliminate all subsidies, tax breaks, etc for energy of any form – bring it on). But rising fuel costs will get us there anyway (for example $3 propane is the under 7 year break even point for my systems). I live/work in a city, so all the noise about not working in the city is, of course, false.

    You confuse “it works” with “it is a universal solution for every person in every situation in every location on the planet.”

    What Jeff said in 28. Plus, I perceive you as a hopeless dreamer and someone who does not have a background in science. In short, a believer in magic. You should do some serious reading here:

    Careful – you are speaking with someone who actually knows what he is talking about, not one of your typical posters who falls for the concept of “gee I don’t know how to do it -it can’t be done” – that is a challenge I often accept and always win when I take it (to my customer’s benefit).

    If you think electricity comes from the outlet and heat from the register – of course you can’t imagine how myself and others like me convert the suns energy into forms useful to humans. Your loss.

  41. Actually Thoughtful said

    So the fake shock that we tie strings to American funding money is still being expressed. Why?

    How is it different then one of my customers choosing not to accept one of the options I propose? It comes across as naiveté.

    Or not recognizing capitalism when you see it. And to state the obvious that some of you somehow missed – this is not an Obama invention, but the way foreign aid has always worked. At one time there were strings on US foreign aid requiring receiving countries not to perform abortions (as an obvious example of a different policy that was supported with aid).

  42. Mark T said

    Actually Thoughtful said
    April 11, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    Wrong. As is been your trend of late.

    Trend? Really, when have you EVER found something wrong in what I have written here?

    I design and install solar thermal systems. That work.

    Good for you. Nice appeal to “authority.” I’ll give you a hint: it’s what is known as anecdotal evidence.

    That save my customers thousands of dollars.

    I’m sure they do save money on their bill, but it takes years to recoup the installation costs.

    Government tax credits and utility incentives do make the sales easier (if you want to eliminate all subsidies, tax breaks, etc for energy of any form – bring it on).

    Easier? Seriously, do you have any idea how much of a difference it would be if a) the consumer did not get the credit to install it and b) the manufacturer did not get the credits and subsidies to make the equipment in the first place?

    Apparently, no, you don’t. See what I mean, you do this for a living and you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

    But rising fuel costs will get us there anyway (for example $3 propane is the under 7 year break even point for my systems).

    Will? So, it’s not there yet as I claimed, yet somehow I’m wrong? You’re oblivious on so many levels, you can’t even keep your story straight within a single post.

    I live/work in a city, so all the noise about not working in the city is, of course, false.

    Basic physics. There is only so much solar power per square meter, and only so much of that actually does work due to efficiency losses, which are still extremely high. Maybe it is a good solution for your “house,” but not anywhere in which the density is too high, another point I made that you just didn’t grasp.

    You confuse “it works” with “it is a universal solution for every person in every situation in every location on the planet.”

    That’s sort of the point, right? You’re confusing “it works in my little world” with “it works as a reasonable alternative energy source.”

    I made that pretty clear that it’s not a solution for everywhere, but did not deny that some may benefit. Certainly some places will be able to use it without tax credits and other government subsidies, some day, but not yet – they still need the subsidy (there’s an economic component that you clearly don’t understand at work here, it would not be affordable at all without subsidy). I’m quite familiar with how well solar power works, and I’m guessing I have quite a bit more background in the theory than you do.

    Careful – you are speaking with someone who actually knows what he is talking about,

    Whoa! I was wondering when that would come out. Best appeal to authority ever. No, you don’t, really. You should be careful, too, because you have no idea what people like JAE and I do for a living, or what our educational background is. If you were smart enough, you would have figured it out by now, but clearly…

    not one of your typical posters who falls for the concept of “gee I don’t know how to do it -it can’t be done” – that is a challenge I often accept and always win when I take it (to my customer’s benefit).

    Good for you. I’m sure there are people that benefit. But that doesn’t improve your position any. I would suggest you look up the concept of anecdotal evidence, btw. I know, you’re such a logic expert and all it’s probably beneath you, but apparently you missed this one during that extensive education you received.

    If you think electricity comes from the outlet and heat from the register – of course you can’t imagine how myself and others like me convert the suns energy into forms useful to humans. Your loss.

    Hehe, you have no clue, do you?

    Mark

  43. Mark T said

    Actually Thoughtful said
    April 11, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    So the fake shock that we tie strings to American funding money is still being expressed. Why?

    You just don’t get it. It’s not shock, it’s dismay at the hypocrisy.

    How is it different then one of my customers choosing not to accept one of the options I propose? It comes across as naiveté.

    Bad analogy. Your customer does not already have the product.

    Or not recognizing capitalism when you see it.

    Do you understand capitalism? Anything that is going on with this is not capitalism nor is there any parallel.

    this is not an Obama invention, but the way foreign aid has always worked.

    No, it’s not, but then again, Obama is using this to push an agenda the people he serves do not want.

    Mark

  44. Actually Thoughtful said

    Mark,

    Trend? Really, when have you EVER found something wrong in what I have written here?

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/legislting-physics/#comments

    My 119 to your 111. It helps to pay attention.

    Easier? Seriously, do you have any idea how much of a difference it would be if a) the consumer did not get the credit to install it and b) the manufacturer did not get the credits and subsidies to make the equipment in the first place?

    Apparently, no, you don’t. See what I mean, you do this for a living and you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

    Mark,
    I do this for a living. Dude, you should really, really try paying attention.

    That means that every day I do the analysis, with and without the incentives. I’ve done solar thermal for folks who want nothing to do with the paperwork for gov’ment/utility incentives. As the US is so pathetically behind in manufacturing due to giving up on the technology – I don’t think the US government is subsidizing Germany and China (where the best components (which is what I use)) come from. If the Governments of China and Germany are subsidizing these products for my American customers – bless their little hearts!

    So, as you are a fan of hints -here is one: don’t try to challenge a subject matter expert when you don’t appear to have a clue on the issue.

    In case you weren’t paying attention – I do this for a living. You may just phone your work in, but I work in the trades, which means a deep understanding of all aspects of the work at hand. Otherwise you get your ass handed to you.

    Another hint for your – arrogance works better when you can back it up.

  45. Mark T said

    Actually Thoughtful said
    April 11, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    My 119 to your 111. It helps to pay attention.

    Pay attention to what? You’re wrong, I’m right, so what? Bikes aren’t cars travelling at 75 mph. Bad analogy. It is basic physics, if you are in a heavier car, your injuries will be less. It’s not only that, but statistically true, too.

    I do this for a living. Dude, you should really, really try paying attention.

    |
    Yeah, and you still don’t understand a) the economics behind what it is you do and b) the physics. You should be careful and pay attention yourself, you have no clue what my background or education is.

    There’s a reason an appeal to authority is so often the silliest approach. You’d know this if you understood logic as you claim.

    Another hint for your – arrogance works better when you can back it up.

    I do, and have. You should take some of your own medicine.

    And, I should point out, what differentiates me and you regarding insult: I never claimed not to, nor do I whine when insulted. Hypocrisy, by definition, makes one a liar. I should reiterate this often, hypocrite.

    Mark

  46. Mark T said

    Actually Thoughtful said
    April 11, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    That means that every day I do the analysis, with and without the incentives.

    Bingo, right there you admit you don’t get it. You can’t just take out the incentive and add it to the price (and it’s not just the consumer’s tax credit). You need to analyze what happens to the demand when the price goes up, and then sales drop, and the decrease in price (and cost) never occurs as normally happens with new products as the initial startup costs are distributed across volume. You have to rewind to when there was no incentives, not for the consumer nor the manufacturer, and then see what happens when nobody is buying the product because it is not affordable, and no incentives are on the horizon. Guess what? You wouldn’t have a job right now, and I wouldn’t have to repeat this silly nonsense over and over to people like you that think they understand economics without the benefit of ever studying it.

    Mark

  47. JAE said

    Acually bullshit said:

    “Wrong. As is been your trend of late. I design and install solar thermal systems. That work. That save my customers thousands of dollars. Government tax credits and utility incentives do make the sales easier (if you want to eliminate all subsidies, tax breaks, etc for energy of any form – bring it on). But rising fuel costs will get us there anyway (for example $3 propane is the under 7 year break even point for my systems). I live/work in a city, so all the noise about not working in the city is, of course, false.”

    Would it be too much to ask for us poor mortals to see some proof of this? Come on, you champion of economics, give us some hard facts, instead of hot bullshit. LOL.

  48. [...] Climate blackmail – sign the accord or lose your funding AKPC_IDS += "5332,"; [...]

  49. Pops said

    Some here seem to be arguing solar thermal, whilst others are arguing photo-voltaic. I’m guessing there’s a significant difference in the economics of the two. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that a $100M installation that saves $1M per year (Nellis AFB) is a quick way to destroy wealth. But making hot water instead of electricity is a horse of a different color.

  50. Actually Thoughtful said

    And, I should point out, what differentiates me and you regarding insult: I never claimed not to, nor do I whine when insulted. Hypocrisy, by definition, makes one a liar. I should reiterate this often, hypocrite.

    Hilarious! I can hear your whining voice from here as you labor to make you point.

    Bingo, right there you admit you don’t get it. You can’t just take out the incentive and add it to the price (and it’s not just the consumer’s tax credit). You need to analyze what happens to the demand when the price goes up, and then sales drop, and the decrease in price (and cost) never occurs as normally happens with new products as the initial startup costs are distributed across volume. You have to rewind to when there was no incentives, not for the consumer nor the manufacturer, and then see what happens when nobody is buying the product because it is not affordable, and no incentives are on the horizon. Guess what? You wouldn’t have a job right now, and I wouldn’t have to repeat this silly nonsense over and over to people like you that think they understand economics without the benefit of ever studying it.

    Dude! I do this for a living! If I can’t make it affordable I don’t have work! You JUST. DON’T. GET. IT.

    There are those who study economics (which I have) And those who live it -the folks who actually own their own businesses – create jobs by their ability to imagine and create work, work other people will pay them for, and which they can pay others to accomplish. I call these people owner-class people. We simply view the world differently then other folks.

    Don’t worry about me – I will have rewarding work no matter what. Because I am passionate and knowledgeable about what I do. As I mentioned – I’ve sold this work before there were incentives. I’ve sold it when incentives were high. Now that incentives are dropping (due to success) – I will keep selling it. And building out systems that exceed my customers expectations and make them money. The fact that my work reduces our dependence on foreign oil, reduced terrorism and reduces global warming – all to the good!

  51. Actually Thoughtful said

    #46

    That we spend 5X on fossil fuel subsidies compared to renewables:

    http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-22-fossil-fuel-subsidies-dwarf-clean-energy-subsidies-obama-wants/

    That renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel – a case study:
    design temp -2F
    house square footage: 2500 square feet
    propane usage per year: 1389 (gallons)
    One-time cost to replace 75% with solar thermal: $45,000

    Doing just super simple straight-line analysis – at $2/gallon it will take 16 years (no incentives or tax credits (although, it is true, it does require a functioning market for the components I install (oh, and it also requires oxygen, as all my installers are oxygen breathing lifeforms))).

    At $3/gallon it is 11 years. Most of my customers desire to take advantage of the current incentives offered by the federal government and a local utility (read that as you and me) – they cut their paybacks roughly in half.

    This assumes zero inflation (which has averaged 7%/year for the last 40 years for natural gas, according to EIA data). It also ignores the time value of money. If you set that to 7% (a reasonable approximation) you can see that the simple analysis, while not perfect, is in the ballpark.

    Now this case study is for an absolutely no change scenario, in terms of the house operates. It turns out when you have solar thermal for your heating, it actually makes sense to keep your house warmer than 68F when the sun is shining. I haven’t met a customer yet who doesn’t appreciate a warmer house in winter. So you heat up their home to ~70F or higher when the sun is out, using their warmer house, which provides extra comfort as additional thermal mass for the system, meaning that it takes longer before the system needs to draw down the solar storage tank at night, which means you can exceed the rated 75% annual coverage.

    And this particular home has some peculiar hot water requirements. In a normal home, a lower hot water delivery temperature would further increase the performance. These two changes together would easily drop a year or two from the simple break even calculation.

    I hope you can see no insults are needed – just ask. I’ve tried to keep this approachable to the casual reader. If you want me to dive into a detail just ask.

    #48 – correct PV is very different than solar thermal. But posters on this blog like to pretend that all PV systems are battery storage systems – when the reality is that for the foreseeable future you can treat the grid as your “battery” and continue to reduce peak load (ie the most expensive power) – PV, by happy coincidence, produces its peak power precisely during peak demand (due to A/C requirements being tied to sunshine, and the fact that more industrial processes occur during 8am-5pm, when solar PV is harvesting).

    By pretending that PV requires batteries, they can minimize the cost effectiveness of PV right now. It will likely not ever be as good as solar thermal (17% vs 70%+) – but it does replace coal, vs replacing natural gas for solar thermal).

  52. Actually Thoughtful said

    No, it’s not, but then again, Obama is using this to push an agenda the people he serves do not want.

    Wrong again! (Was there some discussion of a trend here?!…)

    In a democracy you could idealistically hope/assume the President would serve all the people. But when the people are divided, you could rationally assume he/she will serve the folks who elected him/her. Those of us who actually pulled the lever for Obama do want him to use the legal tools at his disposal to limit global warming.

    At last check Obama had a 46% approval rating. If I recall correctly, Obama won with 52% of the votes. So that means that ~88% of those that elected him still approve of what he is doing and he is, in fact “pushing an agenda the people he serves DO want”.

  53. Scott B said

    The politicians and millions of their supports claim they are doing things in the best interests of their constituents. Some argument to the effect of, if we don’t stop CO2, then we are all going to burn and these countries aren’t playing along. We’ve used aid to motivate countries to do what we want for years on any number of issues. I don’t see why that by itself is a bad thing. I disagree with doing it around Copenhagen because the remedies proposed there will only cause harm to us. Not because I think the tactic itself is necessarily evil. If the countries don’t want our aid, it’s up their people to force their government to stop them. It’s not our responsibility to look out for the best interests of their citizens.

  54. JAE said

    50: I agree that solar thermal can “pencil out.” My argument is with PV. It suffers the same problems as wind; you cannot simplistically treat the grid as a “battery.” see, e.g. http://www.masterresource.org/2010/04/case-study-on-methods-of-industrial-scale-wind-power-analysis-part-i/

    Your logic about The One completely escapes me. He would not be elected today, because his constant duplicity and arrogance has turned off a large proportion of his supporters.

  55. kim said

    This might be useful:

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article18546.html

    entitled ‘Is Green Energy Credible?’

    H/t to Tom Nelson, who doesn’t get enough thanks.
    ================

  56. Actually Thoughtful said

    Your logic about The One completely escapes me. He would not be elected today, because his constant duplicity and arrogance has turned off a large proportion of his supporters.

    He was elected because enough of the people were tired of wars over made up weapons and the constant attack on our constitutional liberties that the neocons inflicted on us. Whether he will be re-elected is another question. Your reference to him as the one indicates you didn’t vote for him and don’t think he will be re-elected. I felt the same way about Bush, who I called “Bush”.

    Regarding PV – I can’t speak for utility scale. My whole point with energy is to reclaim it. I am mostly interested in site-based solutions. And for the foreseeable future, you can treat the grid like a battery. If enough people wake up and own the means of production (of energy) then local storage issues (aka the battery problem) occurs. Basically a high quality problem as that means you have made a huge impact on the energy market, reduced our reliance on foreign energy, reduced the funding for terrorism and notably reduced CO2 emissions.

    And if the all out war that the neocons and right wingers call for (against their own government) comes – I will have energy when the sun shines or the wind blows, unlike my neocon neighbors who believed your rhetoric that you couldn’t make electricity without a battery.

  57. GORE LIED said

    And a leaked Obama administration memo is pushing for a “global regime” to combat climate change, and also details a “media outreach” strategy includes “Increase use of off-the-record conversations.” Sounds like Chicago-style thug politics to me.

  58. JAE said

    54:

    “He was elected because enough of the people were tired of wars over made up weapons and the constant attack on our constitutional liberties that the neocons inflicted on us. Whether he will be re-elected is another question. Your reference to him as the one indicates you didn’t vote for him and don’t think he will be re-elected. I felt the same way about Bush, who I called “Bush”.”

    Yes, I know why a lot of people voted for him; I almost did, too, because I don’t like McCain’s politics, either. But then I looked at who BHO’ friends are and how little I could find out about him, and it scared me. Now many of those who elected him are stunned and shamed by the fact that they were stupid enough to elect a nice looking, well-spoken guy that they knew absolutely NOTHING about–no papers he has written, no college grades, no passports, no birth certificate, books that someone else wrote for him, etc. And BHO has done more than all his predecessors combined to trash our Constitution, with all the socialistic czars, bribes to congressmen, back-room deals, etc. And he’s still fighting the wars, in case you haven’t noticed. LOL.

  59. Actually Thoughtful said

    Now many of those who elected him are stunned and shamed by the fact that they were stupid enough to elect a nice looking

    We are pretty far off the original topic that the current actions are standard and necessary foreign policy tools, so I am just pointing out the falseness of one of your claims. If 52% voted for him and 46% still approve (and would presumably vote to re-elect), then only 6% have changed their mind. Doesn’t strike me as “many.” And “stunned” is doubtful too. And “shamed” is pretty much you putting words in their mouth. And of course the rest of your post is of the same quality. The actual attack on the Constitution came from Bush. But the neocons CANNOT acknowledge that their boy was the one who sold them down the river.

  60. PhilJourdan said

    Kan #2:

    Yep, and Obama told us exactly what he would do as President, by past actions more than the words.

    Nobody seemed to be listening……or watching.

    I am glad you added the “by past actions”. It allows me to agree 100%. I really did not pay him much attention on his campaign promises – that was to get elected. But his past actions told me that the only thing he has done that would surprise me in the least is his dishonesty. The rest I fully expected, that one I wished was not going to be true.

  61. Braille said

    Actually Thoughtful:

    You’re comparing voting records with current approval rating. That’s apples and oranges (a false analogy). The story is quite different if you use oranges and oranges:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history_11_06_2008_01_20_2009

    Obama’s approval rating peaked at 69% on 12/19/2008, within weeks of the election. We’re looking at the “Total Approve” column, of course, since we don’t care about the extremes.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

    Obama’s current approval rating is at 48% as of 4/12/2010.

    So his approval rating has dropped 21 points, or is now 30% lower than where it started.

    Looking at the data a little more in-depth, it appears that only a few weeks ago his approval rating dipped down to 43% (3/21/2010). So it appears that a 30% drop in approval is a generous statement given recent records.

    Which means that there are, indeed, “many” people (at least 30% of those who originally approved of him) who feel that Obama has not lived up to their expectations in some way, and have since changed their position from approval to disapproval.

    Whether someone wants to use the terms “stunned” or “shamed” to describe this is up to them. It would seem that the evidence might bear out that particular view, though.

    Also, I’ve heard (anecdotal evidence, I admit) that many who originally approved of Obama are now running with the Teapertiers, so I’d say there are at least a few that would attest to feeling stunned and/or ashamed if asked.

  62. Actually Thoughtful said

    #59 – I see what you are saying. However even your correction leaves a lot to be desired. And it still may be the case that my proxy is better than your proxy. When Bush was elected by the Supremes I was of course scared and worried. But I supported the new President and hoped for the best. After all, Bush Sr. was not quite the unmitigated disaster I feared.

    That is the source of the approval rating higher the election results (or else voters are irrational and preferred Obama but voted for McCain).

    You could consider me a weak supporter of Bush at that time. If his actions had swung towards solving environmental problems and keeping the government solvent, I would have become a fervent supporter.

    But he didn’t and I didn’t. Likewise with Obama, I am sure, some right leaning folks hoped for a guy who would see things their way in actual fact (and if you look at it objectively, Obama’s health care is closer to Republican’s 1992 version of healthcare than any progressive version – but I really don’t want to go there as I don’t care about healthcare!).

    But they, with much cheer leading from right wing opinion shapers, discovered Obama wasn’t a neocon in progressive clothing, so they dropped their support, just as I dropped my support of Bush as his radical anti-science, anti-fiscal discipline and anti-Constitution agenda became clear.

    So, obviously I am having some fun with the comparison’s, but I end up thinking my original 52 to 46% is more accurate than your 63% to whatever depths you could find on Rasmussen (try RealClearPolitics – less political agenda to unravel before you can trust the numbers). The 11% beyond the 52% who actually voted for him wished him well, but they didn’t vote for him, and were very open to ANY reason to say “well I tried to like him but look he is just screwing up.”

    But I do grant you the points that 1) you can never know the results without another election, so lets reconnect on this in November of 2012 and 2) there is at least one person who voted for Obama who wished he/she hadn’t.

  63. CNY Roger said

    #50

    Actually Thoughtful,

    Could you provide a reference for solar thermal that could be used in Central New York winters with 6,803 heating degree days, 110 inches of snow a year and 186 cloudy days a year. I can see it augmenting fossil fuels but really don’t see it replacing fossil fuel or electricity in an existing home.

    Thanks.

  64. JAE said

    A.T.: All I know is that when the Speaker of the House says that we must pass a 2700-page bill in order to find out what’s in it, we are in deep shit. And as it turns out, so is she, LOL: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/12/nyt-obamacare-may-have-accidentally-stripped-congress-of-health-coverage/

  65. Actually Thoughtful said

    # 61 – you do have to watch expectations. We aim for 75% coverage, which still leaves 25% for fossil fuel. However we have ways to minimize even that 25%.

    As to your NY climate – it could be your locale is just not a great solar candidate. I’ve asked a friend who works in that area as he once showed me some great results from (I think) a prison in the Finger Lakes region. The strategy would be 3-fold: Use evacuated tubes, have multi-day storage, and/or (possibly) combine solar thermal with a ground source heat pump so you can inject solar heat year round and only extract it as needed. I will share the link when I get it.

  66. Actually Thoughtful said

    # 63
    Here is the link:

    http://www.wiredsolar.net/demosites.php

    Check out Hilco Solar

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: