From the Energy Front 022310
Hey folks,
We keep hearing the President tell us that we are "back from the brink." He just toted, at the one year anniversary of the Stimulus, that the Stimulus, and he, saved us all from utter disaster. One, uh, no. Make that TWO million jobs created or saved.{Coughing} Yeah. Unemployment stabilizing. Birds singing. Sea levels lowering. OH WAIT. did you catch this? Climate Scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels? {Laughing}
From the UK Guardian {Of course not a US MMD} Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels by David Adam
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
So again, there is even more evidence that GW is nothing more than BS. Yet, Obama and Crew are still using this as a bases for all the insanity that they are trying to push. Well, except Obamacare.
So let's look at his claim. the economy is thriving, or at least on the mend. So what does that mean? It means we are not still losing jobs. Right? It means no one is losing homes. Right? It means you can get a line of credit. Right? That means, that YOU have more money in your pocket. Right? By you having the money money, and no fear of losing your job, you are out and about. you are taking Vacations, shopping, and living your life once more. Right?
Well, let's see. If you are out and about more, that would mean you pack up your cars, and head out. Lets see. Total petroleum deliveries fell 3.8 percent to 18.4 million barrels a day in January 2010 from the same month a year ago. According to API's Monthly Statistical Report issued last Friday.
Now it DOES show a SLIGHT increase in gas. 0.9 percent. However, Gasoline demand was far below the peak of 9.6 million barrels a day reached in July 2007. So I guess you are NOT driving more. Hmm.
Well, you are out there, buying more stuff. you know, driving the economy. You spend. Retailers sell, make profits. Grow, hire more people. Manufacturers make more stuff, hire more people, ship it out to the Retailers, giving increased business to Transport Companies, who hire more people. Let's see. We saw a sharp drop last month in demand for Ultra Low-Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) fuel. Hmm.
So you are driving less. Trucks are hauling less to Stores. Manufacturers are producing less. Therefore shipping less. Therefore, NO ONE is hiring. The Economy is better, why?
We already know that the unemployment rate is still, just "under" 10 percent. We know the REAL number is somewhere around 17 to 18 percent. We know people are STILL losing their jobs, Homes, and no one can get credit. So where is all this improvement?
So instead of doing what we have discussed in the past, allowing the Oil and Natural Gas industry to do their thing. Which would create over a halve Million NEW and REAL jobs, increase revenue to the States and Federal Government in the Billions and up to TRILLIONS of dollars Annually. Obama decides to continue to lie. Completely Lie. Completely just make stuff up. The problem is, everyone KNOWS he is lying. Why can we not learn from history? Cut taxes and increase revenue to the Government. Cut spending, save money. Get out of the way of the driving force of our economy, and watch it flourish. It really is not all the difficult to understand. It really is not.
Peter
Sources:
Energy Tomorrow Blog - Economic Indicators: Diesel Demand and Jobs
Hey folks,
We keep hearing the President tell us that we are "back from the brink." He just toted, at the one year anniversary of the Stimulus, that the Stimulus, and he, saved us all from utter disaster. One, uh, no. Make that TWO million jobs created or saved.{Coughing} Yeah. Unemployment stabilizing. Birds singing. Sea levels lowering. OH WAIT. did you catch this? Climate Scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels? {Laughing}From the UK Guardian {Of course not a US MMD} Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels by David Adam
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
So again, there is even more evidence that GW is nothing more than BS. Yet, Obama and Crew are still using this as a bases for all the insanity that they are trying to push. Well, except Obamacare.
So let's look at his claim. the economy is thriving, or at least on the mend. So what does that mean? It means we are not still losing jobs. Right? It means no one is losing homes. Right? It means you can get a line of credit. Right? That means, that YOU have more money in your pocket. Right? By you having the money money, and no fear of losing your job, you are out and about. you are taking Vacations, shopping, and living your life once more. Right?
Well, let's see. If you are out and about more, that would mean you pack up your cars, and head out. Lets see. Total petroleum deliveries fell 3.8 percent to 18.4 million barrels a day in January 2010 from the same month a year ago. According to API's Monthly Statistical Report issued last Friday.Now it DOES show a SLIGHT increase in gas. 0.9 percent. However, Gasoline demand was far below the peak of 9.6 million barrels a day reached in July 2007. So I guess you are NOT driving more. Hmm.
Well, you are out there, buying more stuff. you know, driving the economy. You spend. Retailers sell, make profits. Grow, hire more people. Manufacturers make more stuff, hire more people, ship it out to the Retailers, giving increased business to Transport Companies, who hire more people. Let's see. We saw a sharp drop last month in demand for Ultra Low-Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) fuel. Hmm.
So you are driving less. Trucks are hauling less to Stores. Manufacturers are producing less. Therefore shipping less. Therefore, NO ONE is hiring. The Economy is better, why?
We already know that the unemployment rate is still, just "under" 10 percent. We know the REAL number is somewhere around 17 to 18 percent. We know people are STILL losing their jobs, Homes, and no one can get credit. So where is all this improvement?
So instead of doing what we have discussed in the past, allowing the Oil and Natural Gas industry to do their thing. Which would create over a halve Million NEW and REAL jobs, increase revenue to the States and Federal Government in the Billions and up to TRILLIONS of dollars Annually. Obama decides to continue to lie. Completely Lie. Completely just make stuff up. The problem is, everyone KNOWS he is lying. Why can we not learn from history? Cut taxes and increase revenue to the Government. Cut spending, save money. Get out of the way of the driving force of our economy, and watch it flourish. It really is not all the difficult to understand. It really is not.
Peter
Sources:
Energy Tomorrow Blog - Economic Indicators: Diesel Demand and Jobs
7 comments:
The oceans are not rising??? Huh?
Fair and balanced.
Original Article:
Rising Sea Level Forcing Evacuation of Island Country
(Lester R. Brown) During the twentieth century, sea level rose by 20-30 centimeters (8-12 inches). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects a rise of up to 1 meter during this century. Sea level is rising because of the melting of glaciers and the thermal expansion of the ocean as a result of climate change. This in turn is due to rising atmospheric levels of CO2, largely from burning fossil fuels.
As sea level has risen, Tuvalu has experienced lowland flooding. Saltwater intrusion is adversely affecting its drinking water and food production. Coastal erosion is eating away at the nine islands that make up the country. The higher temperatures that are raising sea level also lead to more destructive storms. Higher surface water temperatures in the tropics and subtropics mean more energy radiating into the atmosphere to drive storm systems. Paani Laupepa, a Tuvaluan government official, reports an unusually high level of tropical cyclones during the last decade. (Tropical cyclones are called hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean.)
Laupepa is bitterly critical of the United States for abandoning the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to reduce carbon emissions. He told a BBC reporter that "by refusing to ratify the Protocol, the U.S. has effectively denied future generations of Tuvaluans their fundamental freedom to live where our ancestors have lived for thousands of years."
For the leaders of island countries, this is not a new issue. In October 1987, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, President of the Maldives, noted in an impassioned address to the United Nations General Assembly that his country was threatened by rising sea level. In his words, his country of 311, 000 was "an endangered nation." With most of its 1,196 tiny islands barely 2 meters above sea level, the Maldives' survival would be in jeopardy with even a 1-meter rise in sea level in the event of a storm surge.
Tuvalu is the first country where people are trying to evacuate because of rising seas, but it almost certainly will not be the last. It is seeking a home for 11,000 people, but what about the 311,000 who may be forced to leave the Maldives? Or the millions of others living in low-lying countries who may soon join the flow of climate refugees? Who will accept them? Will the United Nations be forced to develop a climate-immigrant quota system, allocating the refugees among countries according to the size of their population? Or will the allocation be according to the contribution of individual countries to the climate change that caused the displacement?
Feeling threatened by the climate change over which they have little control, the island countries have organized into an Alliance of Small Island States, a group formed in 1990 specifically to lobby on behalf of these countries vulnerable to climate change.
In addition to island nations, low-lying coastal countries are also threatened by rising sea level. In 2000 the World Bank published a map showing that a 1-meter rise in sea level would inundate half of Bangladesh's riceland. (See map p 36 in Ch 2 of Eco-Economy, at http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Eco_contents.htm.) With a rise in sea level of up to 1 meter forecast for this century, Bangladeshis would be forced to migrate not by the thousands but by the millions. In a country with 134 million people--already one of the most densely populated on the earth--this would be a traumatic experience. Where will these climate refugees go?
Part 2
Rice-growing river floodplains in other Asian countries would also be affected, including India, Thailand, Viet Nam, Indonesia, and China. With a 1-meter rise in sea level, more than a third of Shanghai would be under water. For China as a whole, 70 million people would be vulnerable to a 100-year storm surge.
The most easily measured effect of rising sea level is the inundation of coastal areas. Donald F. Boesch, with the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Sciences, estimates that for each millimeter rise in sea level, the shoreline retreats an average of 1.5 meters. Thus if sea level rises by 1 meter, coastline will retreat by 1,500 meters, or nearly a mile.
With such a rise, the United States would lose 36,000 square kilometers (14,000 square miles) of land--with the middle Atlantic and Mississippi Gulf states losing the most. Large portions of Lower Manhattan and the Capitol Mall in Washington, D.C., would be flooded with seawater during a 50-year storm surge.
A team at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute has calculated Massachusetts's loss of land to the rising sea as warming progresses. Using the rather modest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency projections of sea level rise by 2025, they calculated that Massachusetts would lose from 7,500 to 10,000 acres (3,035 to 4,047 hectares) of land. Based on just the lower estimate and a nominal land value of $1 million per acre for ocean-front property, this would amount to a loss of at least $7.5 billion of particularly expensive property by then.
Some of the 72 coastal communities included in the study would lose far more land than others. Nantucket could lose over 6 acres and Falmouth 3.8 acres a year. Coastal real estate prices are likely to be one of the first economic indicators to reflect the rise in sea level. Those with heavy investments in beachfront properties will suffer most. A half-meter rise in sea level in the United States could bring losses ranging from $20 billion to $150 billion. Beachfront properties, much like nuclear power plants, are becoming uninsurable--as many homeowners in Florida have discovered.
Many developing countries already coping with population growth and intense competition for living space and cropland now face the prospect of rising sea level and substantial land losses. Some of those most directly affected have contributed the least to the buildup in atmospheric CO2 that is causing this problem.
While Americans are facing loss of valuable beachfront properties, low-lying island peoples are facing something far more serious: the loss of their nationhood. They feel terrorized by U.S. energy policy, viewing the United States as a rogue nation, indifferent to their plight and unwilling to cooperate with the international community to implement the Kyoto Protocol.
For the first time since civilization began, sea level has begun to rise at a measurable rate. It has become an indicator to watch, a trend that could force a human migration of almost unimaginable dimensions. It also raises questions about responsibility to other nations and to future generations that humanity has never before faced. [Source: Earth Policy Institute 2001- Eco-Economy Update 2001- November 20. 2001]
climate icon
For more information on rising sea levels and what an eco-economy is, see "Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth". Given the worldwide interest in the book, we have put it online for FREE downloading at -
http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/index.htm
from: http://www.truehealth.org/climnw05.html
Hey Peter,
Sorry, but thank you for taking the time to post this. Sorry but this is all SCI-FI. It is all debunked.
The Headline is purposely misleading.
Rising Sea Level Forcing Evacuation of Island Country
It is intended to give the reader this vision in their head of boats docked with people scurrying about trying to load them and flee with waters rushing in threatening to destroy everything in it's path. Problem is. NONE of that is happening.
The first paragraph debunks the whole thing.
(Lester R. Brown) During the twentieth century, sea level rose by 20-30 centimeters (8-12 inches).
Proven false.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects a rise of up to 1 meter during this century.
Proven to be based on something that had to be withdrawn because IT was proven to be false. Also, the IPCC itself have been proven to be nothing more than propagandists with a financial agenda. They are nothing more than a Joke anymore. Even their own Scientists are starting to call them out.
Sea level is rising because of the melting of glaciers and the thermal expansion of the ocean as a result of climate change. This in turn is due to rising atmospheric levels of CO2, largely from burning fossil fuels.
They are NOT melting as we have been lead to believe. The Sea Levels are NOT rising. And CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is NEEDED for sustained Life. It is NATURAL. {Sigh}
But then you get this.
The higher temperatures that are raising sea level also lead to more destructive storms. Higher surface water temperatures in the tropics and subtropics mean more energy radiating into the atmosphere to drive storm systems.
We are not warming. Haven't since 95. There are no increased storms.
the Maldives' survival would be in jeopardy with even a 1-meter rise in sea level in the event of a storm surge.
Storms can be bad. Earthquakes, Hurricanes, Typhoones. these can all be bad, and they are all NATURAL.
But let's deal with IF. IF,,, WAIT A SECOND!!!! Did I read that correctly?
In October 1987, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, President of the Maldives, noted in an impassioned address to the United Nations General Assembly that his country was threatened by rising sea level.
1987? They should be underwater by now. 1987? Hello? How long would it take to evacuate 311,000 people? 23 years?
Anyway, back to IF. 10 years ago
2000 the World Bank published a map showing that a 1-meter rise in sea level would inundate half of Bangladesh's riceland
So nothing in the past 10 years? They are still there Pete. But what IF.
I have a dooms day warning for you. IF the Sun burns out, we are all going to die. IF we get hit by an Asteroid, we could all die. IF I stood in front of a moving Train, I could be killed. IF?
Problem is, the Sun IS burning out, according to the experts, yet will not really happen for another few million or billion years. There is no known Asteroid on direct collision course with Earth. Well, at lease according to MOST Astronomers. Some say there is. And I have no intention of standing in front of a moving Train. Although I'm sure there are some folks that would not mind pushing me in front of one. {Smile}
Yes Pete, IF the sea levels were to rise, some of these areas will have problems. IF the Volcano erupts, those folks will have problems. IF a cat 5 Hurricane was to hit South Florida, I would have some problems. IF means a lot of things. But it does NOT mean it is going to happen. Or that it IS happening.
The people that said the Sea Levels are rising were forced to retract it, because it was found to be FALSE. It is NOT happening Pete.
Again, thanks for posting, but this is nothing more than SCI-FI. If? 1987? 2000? It's 2010, there is no mass evacuations happening right now, because NOTHING is happening.
Peter
http://www.crudethemovie.com/
Just watched this documentary. Shows how truly evil big oil is and the lengths they will go to protect their outrageous profits. Oil and money before people. And you trust the scientists on their payroll about climate change? Sad.
Pete, Pete, Pete,
Nice try my friend. Problem is, just like Michael Moron movies, Al Gore, just because someone makes a movie, doesn't mean it's true.
1. At the conclusion of the oil production concession between Texaco Petroleum (“Texpet,” a subsidiary of Texaco, which merged with a Chevron subsidiary in 2001)and the government of Ecuador in 1992, the parties conducted a full environmental audit, and Texpet performed a multi-year, $40 million remediation program proportionate to its minority ownership share of the Consortium. That program was approved by the government of Ecuador, which then granted Texpet and all related entities a full and complete release from any remaining environmental liability associated with the consortium’s operations.
2. When the same U.S. contingency-fee lawyers initially filed the Aguinda case —the precursor to today’s Lago Agrio lawsuit—in U.S. federal court in 1993, the then government of Ecuador formally intervened in the case and advised the court that the government, not private plaintiffs, had the exclusive right to assert claims for environmental impacts to the government-owned lands upon which the oil operations had been conducted, and that the government had resolved those claims through the negotiated remediation program and the related Settlement and Release.
3.By its own admission, the government of Ecuador for years neglected to perform its share of the environmental remediation. Indeed, in sharp contrast, it has systematically starved its wholly-owned oil operations of the funds necessary for reasonable maintenance and responsible oil field operations, preferring instead to divert its billions of dollars in oil proceeds to other purposes.
4. Since the government of Ecuador assumed full ownership of the operation nearly 20 years ago, Petroecuador has compiled a deplorable record of environmental irresponsibility, tallying more than 1,400 oil spills since 2000 alone.
http://opntalk.blogspot.com/2009/05/chevrons-ecuadorian-battle-more-at.html
http://opntalk.blogspot.com/2009/08/cancer-in-ecuador.html
http://opntalk.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-of-judge-being-bribed-3-million.html
http://opntalk.blogspot.com/2009/09/ecuador-judge-says-recuses-himself-from.html
http://opntalk.blogspot.com/2009/09/amazon-defense-communications-aka.html
As you can see, I've been following this pretty close.
As for your continued claim that the only scientist calling Global Warming a Scam have ties to the Oil Industry is completely Bogus. Some of the VERY SCIENTIST that WERE part of the Scam are coming out now saying it is. Sorry. It's really sad that people like you wish to continue to believe the Lie, in the face of all the FACTS and Reality of the situation. There is no threat Pete. Sorry. You've been SCAMED. I understand, sometimes it's hard for some to accept they fell for a scam. But I'm sure you will come around. {Smile}
Peter
There once was a company that sold $200 billion in product every year. They had a contract with a country that went through 8 presidents in 10 years. When the contract expired the company spent $40 million and the country decided, together, that covering the waste pools with DIRT would sufficiently protect the people and the animals from the harmful effects of the companies product.
Then people started getting sick. Very sick. Even an INDEPENDENT study mandated by the country's corrupt government stated that the company's product was making the people sick.
The company didn't like the situation that was unfolding. They put pressure on the country to resolve the issue. First, the country tried using violence, but they killed the brother of the man speaking out by accident. Then the country had a clever idea. The country just took the blame for the environmental situation. Because it is virtually impossible to sue any government, especially one as corrupt as this one.
So while no one wants to step up and take responsibilty more people are getting sick. More people are building their houses right on top of the waste pits filled in with dirt BY THE COMPANY, more people don't have clean drinking water, more animals are dying, pushing the toxins further and further down the food chain.
Living where I live, in the exploited land of the extract industries this is an all too familiar story. Where local, indigenous peoples have little or no say and the government cowers to special interest.
You have parroted the company talking points nearly line for line. They must be proud of you.
As for your continued claim that the only scientist calling Global Warming a Scam have ties to the Oil Industry is completely Bogus. Some of the VERY SCIENTIST that WERE part of the Scam are coming out now saying it is. Sorry. It's really sad that people like you wish to continue to believe the Lie, in the face of all the FACTS and Reality of the situation. There is no threat Pete. Sorry. You've been SCAMED. I understand, sometimes it's hard for some to accept they fell for a scam. But I'm sure you will come around. {Smile}
Peter
The earth is getting warmer. The FACTS dictate this. (I will continue to point this fact out as long as you call earth's warming a scam). It's just a matter of what is causing this. Natural cycle or humans. There's plenty of information to argue both ways. Maybe it's a combination. I doubt humans don't have ANY affect on the environment, but maybe I'm wrong. But when you keep saying "global warming is a scam", well... The earth's average temp is actually, in reality, according to all (ALL) data, increasing. It seems you go to the GW Bush "if I say something over and over and over it must be true" school.
Keep the corporate talking points rollin'. You're good at it.
Post a Comment