Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Thank You-jp in Milwaukee. I am sure you stuck it to Parados and broke it off. Parados is completely intrangisent. He lets evidence pass by his uncomprehending eyes.

I have posted the following several times but the brain-dead Parados does not understand what it says--
Again--

Greenhouse Hypocrisy

By Robert J. Samuelson

Wednesday, June 29, 2005; Page A21

Almost a decade ago I suggested that global warming would become a "gushing" source of political hypocrisy. So it has. Politicians and scientists constantly warn of the grim outlook, and the subject is on the agenda of the upcoming Group of Eight summit of world economic leaders. But all this sound and fury is mainly exhibitionism -- politicians pretending they're saving the planet. The truth is that, barring major technological advances, they can't (and won't) do much about global warming. It would be nice if they admitted that, though this seems unlikely.

Europe is the citadel of hypocrisy. Considering Europeans' contempt for the United States and George Bush for not embracing the Kyoto Protocol, you'd expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990 (Kyoto's base year for measuring changes) to 2002, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the International Energy Agency. The U.S. increase was 16.7 percent, and most of Europe hasn't done much better.


Here are some IEA estimates of the increases: France, 6.9 percent; Italy, 8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands, 13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; Spain, 46.9 percent. It's true that Germany (down 13.3 percent) and Britain (a 5.5 percent decline) have made big reductions. But their cuts had nothing to do with Kyoto. After reunification in 1990, Germany closed many inefficient coal-fired plants in eastern Germany; that was a huge one-time saving. In Britain, the government had earlier decided to shift electric utilities from coal (high CO2 emissions) to plentiful natural gas (lower CO2 emissions).

On their present courses, many European countries will miss their Kyoto targets for 2008-2012. To reduce emissions significantly, Europeans would have to suppress driving and electricity use; that would depress economic growth and fan popular discontent. It won't happen. Political leaders everywhere deplore global warming -- and then do little. Except for Eastern European nations, where dirty factories have been shuttered, few countries have cut emissions. Since 1990 Canada's emissions are up 23.6 percent; Japan's, 18.9 percent.

We are seeing similar exhibitionism in the United States. The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently endorsed Kyoto. California and New Mexico have adopted "targets" for emission cuts, reports the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. All this busywork won't much affect global warming, but who cares? The real purpose is for politicians to brandish their environmental credentials. Even if rich countries actually curbed their emissions, it wouldn't matter much. Poor countries would offset the reductions.


Like most forecasts, these won't come true. But unless they're wildly unreliable, they demonstrate that greenhouse emissions will still rise. Facing this prospect, we ought to align rhetoric and reality.

First, we should tackle some energy problems. We need to reduce our use of oil, which increasingly comes from unstable or hostile regions (the Middle East, Russia, Central Asia, Africa). This is mainly a security issue, though it would modestly limit greenhouse gases. What should we do? Even with today's high gasoline prices, we ought to adopt a stiff oil tax and tougher fuel economy standards, both to be introduced gradually. We can shift toward smaller vehicles, with more efficient hybrid engines. Unfortunately, Congress's energy bills lack these measures.

Second, we should acknowledge that global warming is an iffy proposition. Yes, it's happening; but, no, we don't know the consequences -- how much warming will occur, what the effects (good or bad) will be or where. If we can't predict the stock market and next year's weather, why does anyone think we can predict the global climate in 75 years? Global warming is not an automatic doomsday. In some regions, warmer weather may be a boon.

Third, we should recognize that improved technology is the only practical way of curbing greenhouse gases. About 80 percent of CO2 emissions originate outside the transportation sector -- from power generation and from fuels for industrial, commercial and residential use. Any technology solution would probably involve some acceptable form of nuclear power or an economic way of removing CO2 from burned fossil fuels. "Renewable" energy (wind, solar, biomass) won't suffice. Without technology gains, adapting to global warming makes more sense than trying to prevent it. Either way, the Bush administration rightly emphasizes research and development.

What we have now is a respectable charade. Politicians and advocates make speeches, convene conferences and formulate plans. They pose as warriors against global warming. The media participate in the resulting deception by treating their gestures seriously. One danger is that some of these measures will harm the economy without producing significant environmental benefits. Policies motivated by political gain will inflict public pain. Why should anyone applY

*************************************************************

I have defied Parados to respond to ALL of the points listed by Samuelson.

He has not.

Why? He can not--It tears his Global Warming thesis to shreds!!!

Username- It is YOU who do not understand the law. You are trying to say that the case against President Bush would be akin to a civil case?

That is completely incorrect!!!

The expert in these matters, Judge Richard Posner wrote in his book--
"An Affair of State"

quote

"The constitution uses a unitary standard, high crimes and misdemeanors, for all federal officials.It seems obvious that in most respects, the threshold should be higher for the President, than for, say, a judge"

and

"Felonious conduct per se is not a sufficient condition for Presidential Impeacment"

and

"The president cannot be prosecuted while in office( only impeached) but he can be prosecuted in the ordinary way after his term expired but there is nothing in the pardon clause itself to suggest that the President himself cannot pardon himself"(If, in case someone were to bring a viable case against him--which is highly unlikely) unless he were to be pardoned beforehand( See President Ford Re; Nixon)

Furthermore--

"Any impeachment would make future Presidents too subservient to Congress"

It is obvious that you know little or nothing about the legal system as it pertains to the President of the United States, username.

Go back to do some reading!!!!

Okie- Did you notice that the EXPERT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, Parados, not only CANNOT EXPLAIN what he has been asked to explain, many times, concerning "Global Warming", He obviously is brain-dead when it comes to doing basic research. He, poor guy, cannot find anything concerning the Senate's turn down of the Kyoto Treaty.

He probably can't find his derriere with both hands!!

It took me five and a half seconds to find the evidence below:
************************************************************
Environment Covered In Second Presidential Debate

President Bush was impressive in listing his environmental accomplishments and proposals in the second presidential debate with Senator John Kerry. Senator Kerry attacked the president but did not describe his accomplishments on environmental issues. Senator Kerry specifically attacked the president for not supporting the Global Warming Treaty (Kyoto Protocol). Interestingly, Senator Kerry did not support the Kyoto Protocol when it came up for a vote in the Senate in 1997:

In July 1997, the U.S. Senate passed S. Res. 98 by a vote of 95-0. S. Res. 98 expressed the sense of the Senate that the "United States should not be a signatory to any protocol . . . which would

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Annex I parties, unless the protocol . . . also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States . . ."

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 105th Congress - 1st Session, Vote Date: July 25, 1997, 11:37 AM, Question: On the Resolution (s.res.98 ) Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter which would: (1) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex 1 Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period; or (2) result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.

YEAs 95
************************************************************

You see, Okie, the Senators voted 95-0 against a proposal that

(See above)

would 'RESULT IN SERIOUS HARM TO THE U. S. ECONOMY"

Even Kerry voted for it.

But, Okie, I am sure that the Senate did not know of the expertise available from Parados and Kuvasz--If they could have listened to them, they would have changed their votes--
LOLOLOLOLOl

Why are the Senators so stupid, Okie? All 95 of them!!!

Because they do not have the brainpower of Parados and Kuvasz--that's why!!!

Posner is a hack who should take more than 5 minutes to wirte his unsupppored opinions so he could do some actual and factual research.

No, he isn't.

I thing I hate is "wirting unsupppored" opinions.

Gee Bernard.
In case you didn't notice that was NOT a vote on ratifying Kyoto. It was a "SENSE OF THE SENATE" resolution. It was not a ratification vote on Kyoto.



I can't expect you to know the difference though.

Falsus in omnia Bernard.

You stated, and I quote,



There was no vote concerning the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Your statement is factually false. You are in error. You continue to prove you can't tell facts from your own perverted reality.

SENSE OF THE SENATE? Sounds like an oxymoron, but anyway, whats the difference between a resolution in regard to considering Kyoto, and voting directly on Kyoto, Parados? In my judgement, its even worse for your side, because your side never even got the Kyoto treaty itself to a vote. Kind of like, lets not even bring it to a vote because it would be even more embarrassing. Some politicians paid lip service to Kyoto to try to look good to their kook base, but even they would not vote for it. Kyoto is a joke, Parados. And the main objection to it is economic.

The ironic part of this debate is that some alternative energies that could actually make the most impact on electrical generation, such as nuclear, the tree huggers killed 25 years ago.

Your ignorance on Legislative Matters is almost as bad as your lack of knowledge on Global Warming.

Here is what you obviously don't know--Parados--

C-SPAN Congressional Glossary
Term Definition Used In
SENSE OF THE SENATE SENSE OF THE SENATE is legislative language which offers the opinion of the Senate, but does not make law.

You got that, Oh Ignorant one----THE OPINION OF THE SENATE----95 TO 0


Make Law? What Law? They did not want to make any LAW! They offered an Opinion that Kyoto was a piece of crap.

And. clueless Parados- You obviously did not read what the OPINION of the Senate said--You didn't because it smacked you right between the eyes. It said:

**************************************************************
In July 1997, the U.S. Senate passed S. Res. 98 by a vote of 95-0. S. Res. 98 expressed the sense of the Senate that the "United States should not be a signatory to any protocol . . . which would

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Annex I parties, unless the protocol . . . also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States . . ."
************************************************************

Bernard, I suggest you always reread the post you're replying to before you post. Once again you have gone off on a complete tangent based on pure fantasy on your part.

The question was whether George Bush's energy policy was unduly influenced by energy companies, in particular Exxon Mobil. The article cited government papers released under the FOI act which seem to make it clear that it is. That is not, to my knowledge, even a crime (it's fairly egregious kowtowing to a special interest and large campaign contributor, but the pres. can probably legally, if not wisely, do it). So what standard of evidence should apply if we want to find out the truth of that allegation, if you insist on casting it in court terms? If it's not a crime, I would say probably that the closest standard is that of civil cases, which is "preponderance of evidence". Impeachment never came up anywhere til you introduced Richard Posner on impeachment, which had absolutely no bearing on the subject at hand. As usual.

Tho now that you mention it, after the Democrats take control of Congress in November, impeachment would not be an inappropriate way to start 2007. And I think we could live with a standard of reasonable doubt.

Well, what you obviously did not understand is that the President cannot be found guilty of a crime while in office unless he is impeached.

Do I have to repost my Posner evidence?

Now, your FOI is something that you must have hidden. If you post the FOI so all of us can see this DAMNING evidence, then we will all know, wont we?

In the absence of your allegations without proof, you are sadly up the creek without a paddle!!!

Energy companies have information and expertise that needs to be brought to the table. If the problem is energy, I want the experts there.

Also, any tax incentives offered to energy companies for new drilling and development is for encouragement to develop new reserves, which are sorely needed.

By the way, profits have been improved for energy companies of late, but still are not out of line compared to other industries. Also consider the fact that oil companies are unable to replace their reserves in a timely manner because the best areas of exploration have been locked up, so companies are essentially making profits by selling their assets. Such is akin to Walmart depleting their store inventories without the ability to replace the inventory, so profits cannot be plowed back into exploration in the full and appropriate manner required to keep pace with depletion. How would you feel about your business if you were in a postion of selling off your assets with no way to replace them fully?

username, special interests lobby Congress, one big reason is to inform Congress. Congress is a collection of mostly lawyers that have little clue about the energy business. The same is true with all industries, requiring lobbyists to educated the boobs in Congress, otherwise they would destroy the economy with stupid legislation.

Read the damned article. You're the one who keeps talking about courts and "beyond a shadow of a doubt", which is a standard that exists only in your own mind. And when people are not even talking about something adjudicable in a court, since we're not talking crimes. You're the one who brought up the straw man of impeachment. Bernard, you live in some sort of fantasy land. People rarely say what you think they said.

okie, the problem is not that energy companies deserve a place at the table. The problem is the table is only set for two. The administration and the energy companies.

And saying lobbyists are there to educate legislators is a sweet pious platitude. But that's all it is, unfortunately. Lobbyists are there to get legislators to vote their companies' way. Any "education" along the way is pretty much spin. It sure ain't any attempt at presenting anything other than one side of the question. And, I suppose, they are also there to get Republicans re-elected, which was what Tom DeLay's whole K Street Project was all about, to get all lobbying money safely in the hands of lobbyists who were Republicans. That lobbying money, and oil industry PR money has gone to insure that the science actually plays as little a part as possible in the debate.

Username wrote:

The question was whether George Bush's energy policy was unduly influenced by energy companies, in particular Exxon Mobil. The article cited government papers released under the FOI act which seem to make it clear that it is.

Point # 1- This is a thread about Global Warming, but I will humor you.

Point # 2-- You are hallucinating. I never saw or read anything which said that George W. Bush's energy policy was UNDULY influenced by energy companies, in particular Exxon Mobil. I never saw any government papers released under the FOI act which SEEM to make it clear that it is.

Point # 3--Post the evidence you allude to, please or go back to Global Warming.

Point # 4---President Bill Clinton, when challenged because the head of Chinese Intelligence contributed to his campaign fund-

I DONT BELIEVE ANY ONE CAN SHOW THAT I CHANGED ANY LEGISLATION BECAUSE OF A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION.

*************************************************************

No you don't, because username isn't accusing Bush of any high crime and misdemeanor. I agree with you about the merits of Richard Posner, but his book is evidence against an assertion username didn't make.

Post 2211028

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dyslexia wrote:
Posner is a hack ....
Thomas wrote:
No, he isn't.
******************************************************
As usual, Thomas, you show that you are a man who knows!!!!!!


Judge Posner's VITA---

Following his graduation from Harvard Law School, Judge Posner clerked for Justice William J. Brennan Jr. From 1963-65, he was assistant to Commissioner Philip Elman of the Federal Trade Commission. For the next two years he was assistant to the solicitor general of the United States. Prior to going to Stanford Law School in 1968 as associate professor, Judge Posner served as general counsel of the President's Task Force on Communications Policy. He first came to the Law School in 1969, and was Lee and Brena Freeman Professor of Law prior to his appointment in 1981 as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He was the chief judge of the court from 1993 to 2000.


Judge Posner has written a number of books, including Economic Analysis of Law (6th ed., 2003), The Economics of Justice (1981), Law and Literature (2d ed. 1997), The Problems of Jurisprudence (1990), Cardozo: A Study in Reputation (1990), The Essential Holmes (1992), Sex and Reason (1992), Overcoming Law (1995), The Federal Courts: Challenge and Reform (1996), Law and Legal Theory in England and America (1996), The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory (1999), Antitrust Law (2d ed. 2001), Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy (2003), Catastrophe: Risk and Response (2004), Preventing Surprise Attacks: Intelligence Reform in the Wake of 9/11 (2005), as well as books on the Clinton impeachment and Bush v. Gore, and many articles in legal and economic journals and book reviews in the popular press. He has taught administrative law, antitrust, economic analysis of law, history of legal thought, conflict of laws, regulated industries, law and literature, the legislative process, family law, primitive law, torts, civil procedure, evidence, health law and economics, law and science, and jurisprudence. He was the founding editor of the Journal of Legal Studies and (with Orley Ashenfelter) the American Law and Economics Review. He is an Honorary Bencher of the Inner Temple and a corresponding fellow of the British Academy, and he was the President of the American Law and Economics Association 1995 - 1996 and the honorary President of the Bentham Club of University College, London, for 1998. He has received a number of awards, including the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation Award in Law from the University of Virginia in 1994, the Marshall-Wythe Medallion from the College of William and Mary in 1998, the 2003 Research Award from the Fellows of the American Bar Foundation, also in 2003 the John Sherman Award from the U.S. Department of Justice, the Learned Hand Medal for Exellence in Federal Jurisprudence from the Federal bar Council in 2005, and, also in 2005, the Thomas C. Schelling Award from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Born: 1939.
Education: -A.B., 1959, Yale University; LL.B., 1962, Harvard University; LL.D. (Hon.), 1986, Syracuse University; LL.D. (Hon.), 1987, Duquesne University; LL.D. (Hon.), 1993, Georgetown University; Dr. Honoris Causa, 1995, University of Ghent; LL.D. (Hon.), 1996, Yale University; LL.D. (Hon.), 1997, University of Pennsylvania; J.D. (Hon.), 2000, Brooklyn Law School; LL.D (Hon.), 2001, Northwestern University; LL.D. (Hon.), 2002, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki; D. Hon. Causa, 2002, University of Athens

C-SPAN Congressional Glossary
Term Definition Used In
SENSE OF THE SENATE SENSE OF THE SENATE is legislative language which offers the opinion of the Senate, but does not make law.

ratification is the vote on a treaty that makes it law.

You claimed that the Senate voted on ratification of Kyoto, Bernard. You should really check your facts before you make stupid claims. It is you that is ignorant of Legislative matters. A resolution is NOT law nor is it a vote to ratify a treaty.