re: VOTE

Hi Ken, looks like you're a wise man, not only fishwise.
God listens. He may not always give you everything you want, when you want it; but he always gives you what you really need, when you need it most!

re: VOTE

Ed, can we take it that you are the region's anomalous vote ?

Domestic fish breeders will have to reckon with the electricity price ( topic which presumably could help justify the existence of this thread and which reminds me to post some climate change bad science rants here. Did you hear about the false claims of Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth to being Nobel Laureates ? )

There is great hope in the nation that your choice will represent your interests with his usual diplomatic flair, isn't there ?

re: VOTE

Hi Dave. You got me lost... and even if I don't vote yet... I'll be a citizen in 2015.. I'm with Ken, and hopefully for Hillary 2016.
God listens. He may not always give you everything you want, when you want it; but he always gives you what you really need, when you need it most!

re: VOTE

Well it'd be nice to see solar panels and wind mills taking care of our energetic needs and not anything you need to burn. I think voter's made the right choice.
God listens. He may not always give you everything you want, when you want it; but he always gives you what you really need, when you need it most!

Re: re: VOTE

puertoayacucho wrote:Well it'd be nice to see solar panels and wind mills taking care of our energetic needs and not anything you need to burn. I think voter's made the right choice.
Ontario's Liberal government announced Thursday it would lower the premiums it pays for future wind and solar energy projects, but electricity bills will keep rising.

The province will drop the guaranteed rate for small rooftop solar projects from 80.2 cents per kilowatt hour to 54.9 cents, while larger solar installations will get between 34.7 cents and 44.5 cents a kWh.

The amount guaranteed for power from industrial wind turbines will drop from 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour to 11.5 cents, regardless of the size of the wind farm.

Ontario Power Generation, the government-owned utility, is paid 5.6 cents a kWh for nuclear power and between two cents and 3.5 cents per kWh for power from its hydro-electric facilities.

Residential consumers pay between 6.2 cents and 10.8 cents a kWh.
It's a disaster worldwide already. Germany, Greece, Spain, Portugal, UK.
Blackouts predicted in UK and reversal of trend is being considered.
In Ontario we paid 80 cents for something worth 8 cents on the market full price.

The jobs to maintain it also cost money, rather than making it.

Individual solar installations have good potential, but the selling price needs to be way lower than the production cost is right now. That is, even if we give them away to other countries, we could make much better investments for them than solar panels.

Germany is the biggest ecocrazed economy in the western world,and Der Spiegel is the ecocrazed paper, yet...
With the government driving up the price of electricity, Rösler seems to feel an urge to make himself useful by dispensing advice on how to save money and energy. On Monday, grid operators announced a significant increase in electricity prices in Germany, prices that are already the second-highest in Europe.

The price hike is the result of an assessment under the Renewable Energy Act (EEG), a sort of green-energy solidarity surcharge that is automatically added to every consumer's electricity bill. Under the agreement reached in the last round of negotiations, the assessment will increase from 3.6 cents to 5.4 cents per kilowatt hour.

With the new rates, German citizens will be paying a total of more than €20 billion ($25.7 billion) next year to promote renewable energy. This is more than €175 for an average three-person household, a 50 percent increase over current figures. And then there are the additional charges a consumer pays for the electricity tax, the cogeneration assessment, the concession fee and value-added tax.


The development is an embarrassment to Germany's coalition government.... In recent months, the government has denied claims that the gradual transition to green energy could cost German citizens a load of money.

Broken Promises

In a government statement issued in June 2011, Chancellor Angela Merkel promised that prices would remain stable...Minister Rösler said that there could even be "room for decreases." The environment ministers, first Norbert Röttgen and then Peter Altmaier, behaved as if Germany's phase-out of nuclear energy was not going to cost anything, even as they handed out billions in subsidies


Merkel must now deal with the consequences of her statement that the energy turnaround was to be the most important domestic project in the legislative period. Within a few hours after the nuclear reactor disaster in Fukushima in March 2011, she had transformed herself from a proponent into an opponent of nuclear energy. At the time, most Germans supported the chancellor. But now, more than a year later, they are losing confidence in her ability to get it right. German politician and EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger says that he doubts "whether German consumers will accept rising electricity prices resulting from the energy turnaround in the long term."

The rising cost of electricity is also a burden on businesses. According to Oettinger, energy costs now represent the biggest liability for Germany as a place to do business, especially in light of the marked increase in the number of blackouts and voltage fluctuations in the grid.
Greece: New Solar Installations Banned. Taxes put on Green Energy to pay for the mess
Greece, aiming to stave off a fresh energy crisis, plans to support its main electricity market operator through a temporary tax on renewable power producers and by extending an emergency loan, a senior official said on Friday. The electricity system came close to collapse in June when market operator LAGHE was overwhelmed by subsidies it pays to green power producers as part of efforts to bolster solar energy. Greece has slashed the guaranteed feed-in prices it pays to some solar operators and is no longer approving permits for their installation. –Harry Papachristou, Reuters, 28 September 2012 ( ... UQ20120928)

re: VOTE

Like a translation I was working on Saturday "If we have the technology to solve these issues, then why don't we solve them?" (roughly representing the main critricism from Natural Capitalism, by Hawkins, Lovins $ Lovins).

Those who own the oil industry know their days are counted, so they're squeezing the last drop of oil out of the earth... an interesting mix of ambition and ignorance behind some of the most powerful economic groups on the planet. The high cost of green tech is only due to policies designed to help hold it back.

We can put people like Obama in power, but if we don't get the people that follow the "Bush Agenda" out of power, we won't see solutions short or middle term.

Some liberals are just too liberal, some conservatives are way too conservative.

It'd be nice to have people that are willing to move away from their extreme ideologies and think more about our common future, the world's common future. Then we would get somewhere.

God listens. He may not always give you everything you want, when you want it; but he always gives you what you really need, when you need it most!

re: VOTE

Ed, it's The Wolf in wolf's clothing or The Wolf in sheep's clothing.

Neither one can do anything at all to change the temperature measurably.

They could stop the USA CO2 contribution totally and it would make little difference, except for stone age like conditions but way, way way worse.

If Greens care so much that CO2 will be the end, then what the heck are they doing opposing nukes? It's senseless... unless the goal is actually control of money.

Nor can Barry's election twice stop the oceans' rise. They have been rising since long before Barry was born.

Total fantasy. It's dismaying to see people buy into such drivel.

It's now been 16 years of no statistically significant warming BTW. 16.

It's at the 95 % certainty level that they have something wrong in the models or theory. Warming should be accelerating, but all data sets show no statistically significant warming.

The 95% significance level is achieved after 15 years of no warming.
Now they are saying natural variations have covered it up...whereas before they were saying the CO2 signal had emerged and that natural variability was swamped by CO2 signal.

Now the opposite. Now they say they do not know natural variability so well because it is swamping the signal they thought must be CO2 because they couldn't think of anything else it could be (such as a natural variance).

Back to the bunkum drawing board.

CO2 will cause warming, but "how much" is the question, and then "how bad is that", and then comes "what to do about it".
Germany and solar. Cost of $97 Billion. Net effect of delaying global warming by 7 hrs by the end of the century

re: VOTE

The President now can again speak about the greatest threat mankind has ever faced.
What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago
One must assume that he has not read the newspapers nor listened to scientists, if one wishes to believe that he acts in good faith. But it's not a good sign.

a/He does not know what he is talking about
b/He is not telling the truth
Your pick.

Judith Curry Professor at Georgia Tech
JC note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years:

Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s statement or in Nuticelli’s argument effectively refutes Rose’s argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.

Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from these other scientists that acknowledge the ‘pause’, mentioned in my previous post Candid comments from global warming scientists
And Climategate's Phil Jones according to the Daily Mail, when asked about the 16 years of no statistically significant warming:
The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.
Obama is not so different from Bush. He's different in one significant way. He's been told in advance of taking further action that he is wrong.

What a crying shame you have going on there - apparently Glenn Beck knows more than the President does about the biggest threat we have ever faced!.

A/Just one of those things.
B/Obama is lying to you. You're in for the trillions.

Professor Curry ( Obama campaign contributor) responds to The President's absurd claim
Hmmmmm. . . I wonder what his source was on the bolded statement.

re: VOTE

Simple help questions for anyone struggling to reconcile the conflicting stories about current warming. Something to help sort out Obama's story.

Does "warmest" equal "warming" ? Not at all.
Does "melting" mean warming or does it signal cooling ? Neither. An ice cube sitting on your counter will melt whether your room temperature is going up from 65 to 75, or when it's going down from 75 to 65. As well, soot heats up ice when in the sun.

Merely noting the switch to those measures ( citing "warmest decades", "ice melting") rather than using what was used before (citing temperature going up), that is an important step in understanding that tricks of reasoning are being used.

Don't feel badly
Speaking of melting and of being badly used: Physicist and former advisor Joe Romm's climate site put out a shrill alarm that now the streetlamps are melting under global warming. The story made Bill McKibben more crazed and onward to Yahoo news.

Bill tweeted: “Senator Inhofe, God may be trying to get your attention. Check out this picture ... e-melting/

The link now shows that ThinkProgress removed the original article and replaced it with a drought story, merely indicating an update to a story( that no longer exists). All reader commentary about the comical episode also removed. The self-righteous indignation. The wailing about Inhofe denying "the science".

This erasing of history is usual and regular business for the climate alarmism industry.

Joseph J. Romm (born June 27, 1960) is an American author, blogger, physicist[1] and climate expert[2] ... efficiency, green energy technologies and green transportation technologies.[3][4] In December 2008, Romm was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In March 2009, Rolling Stone magazine named Romm to its list of "100 People Who Are Changing America".[5] In September 2009, Time magazine named him one of its "Heroes of the Environment (2009)", calling him "The Web's most influential climate-change blogger".[6]
Romm is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he writes and maintains their climate blog, Climate Progress. In 2008, Time magazine named Romm's blog one of the "Top 15 Green Websites".[7] In 2009, Thomas L. Friedman, in his column in The New York Times, called Climate Progress "the indispensable blog",[8] and in 2010, Time included it in a list of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010".[9] Romm also writes regularly for several energy and news websites.
In the 1990s, Romm served as Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy
A dumpster fire underneath melted them the night before, but only the ones in front (just like global warming does).
That is the consensus in the newsroom,â€

re: VOTE

These are the faces of the global catastrophists who want to control economies.
Carbon sequestration masks! ... lXAbi7RSBU
very comfortable... great
If we made some for pets, cause pets also breathe... would have your pet wear it .. a dog or a cat?
Again, if they were prepared to
Not too reassuring?
Obama good. Obama very very good! There. Saved.

In the meeting at Doha, the IPCC was cut out of the process due to recent public failures. The IPCC was not even invited this time. The job was done already in any case. The media spin sites alone can carry it now.

Now it's all about the money and nothing about the evidence. That talk is over.

They are demanding $100 Billion U.S. per year for "redistribution". ... 1212060013
"Money, Money, Money," a group of WWF conservation activists sang outside the talks,
That's only the tip of the iceberg. It's not even in Billions any more.