What if your President's just not that into you?

Some days it just doen't pay to get out of bed. rofllol


http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2 ... st-not-you


"Tomorrow in Washington, at the sprawling and wonderful Power Shift, a few of us are on a panel titled "What If Your President's Just Not That Into You?" Funny title, serious question..........................

And it's not that we don't appreciate what he has done. He's been far better than George Bush (even if that is a little like saying 'I drink more beer than my ten-year-old niece.") We have higher gas mileage standards; the stimulus package funded plenty of green projects; at least some of the most egregious mountaintop removal mining practices are being regulated. All good.

But when the political going got a little tough, Obama didn't."

350 Challenge aims to fight climate change one garden at a time
by Erik Curren

So, icecaps are melting, oil is surging and the economy is still in the tank. You've given up on Congress, you've lost faith in Obama and you aren't impressed with what's coming out of your statehouse these days.

Whaddya gonna do?

You could get ready for the collapse of society. Maybe pick up a few dozen cans of pork-n-beans at Safeway for the basement. Drive some cases of Remington .12 gauge shells out to your bug-out location. Buy, sell, bury or do whatever you're supposed to do with gold these days.

Or, you could get together with some neighbors, dig up the nearest weed-patch and start a community garden.

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2 ... arden-time

This written by a dissapointed environmentalist who is convinced that elimination or reduction of CO2 emissions will stop or slow climate change.

It makes one wonder if the president has really understood his climate science briefings: any hope of warding off global warming depends on keeping that carbon in the ground. Had this happened under Bush, it would have caused real outrage. When burned, that coal will give off as much co2 as opening 300 new coal-fired power plants and running them for a year.

Perhaps the president really does understand his climate science and realizes that regulation of carbon dioxide emissions are unlikely to change or retard climate change. Perhaps he has been convinced that the espoused climate change theory is not bullet proof, has not considered all the variables, has not even identified all the variables and possible causes that contribute to climate change. Personally, I think the geologic past demonstrates convincingly and repeatedly that climate change occurs without our blessing or contribution. Furthermore, this convinces me that the present global warming trend has extrinsic controls likely beyond our ability to regulate. Given this working hypothesis, I'd suggest our society and governments take proactive steps to begin a shift of population centers in low-lying coastal areas to places beyond the reach of rising sea level post glacial melt. Either that or adapt existing cities to deal with gradual submergence and likely stronger storm systems.

neptunechimney wrote: 350 Challenge aims to fight climate change one garden at a time
by Erik Curren

So, icecaps are melting, oil is surging and the economy is still in the tank. You've given up on Congress, you've lost faith in Obama and you aren't impressed with what's coming out of your statehouse these days.

Whaddya gonna do?

You could get ready for the collapse of society. Maybe pick up a few dozen cans of pork-n-beans at Safeway for the basement. Drive some cases of Remington .12 gauge shells out to your bug-out location. Buy, sell, bury or do whatever you're supposed to do with gold these days.

Or, you could get together with some neighbors, dig up the nearest weed-patch and start a community garden.

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2 ... arden-time

This concept has its roots in the idea that plants utilize carbon dioxide and therby stall the universal increase of this atmospheric gas. What it fails to consider is that all plant life produces an emits into the atmosphere methane, a far more powerful greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide. It also does not acknowledge that plants respire during the night and give off carbon dioxide. What I do not know is the relative volumes involved for the uptake vs release of carbon dioxide and the relative volumes of carbon dioxide and methane released by plants.

We really need to regulate the volcanic eruptions on the earth which emit vast quantities of pullutants, before we tackle the insignificant contributors of this "problem?".

major bean wrote: We really need to regulate the volcanic eruptions on the earth which emit vast quantities of pullutants, before we tackle the insignificant contributors of this "problem?".

That too lol Stuff a cork into them? Seriously, something I've not researched is if there is a correlation of increased volcanic activity associated with greenhouse episodes in the geologic past.