Post Scripts: Bush Had A Plan To Upgrade Eastern Power Grid - Dems & Greens Blocked It

1/18/13
Bush Had a Plan to Upgrade Eastern Power Grid - Dems & Greens Blocked It - POST SCRIPTS
Friday, January 18, 2013 12:10:34 AM
POST SCRIPTS
Bush Had a Plan to Upgrade Eastern Power Grid - Dems & Greens Blocked It
By Post Scripts on November 1, 2012 10:59 AM | 16 Comments
Search
Search this blog NorCal Blogs Search
Advertisement
Posted by Tina President Obama has wasted millions and millions of taxpayer dollars (adding to the debt) on green energy projects that have failed or are failing. A better leader might have taken a wiser approach to the energy needs of the American people. The recent storm that has devastated the east highlights the need for smart when it comes to energy. George Bush had a smart plan to improve our energy grid. Had it been adopted when it was proposed the conditions for recovery on the east coast today would be much more favorable. The East coast power grid has been in need of upgrade for many years. The L.A.Times reported on the special interest push to defeat Bush's plan: WASHINGTON -- Minnesota environmentalists will taunt and jeer from a block away when President Bush unveils his national energy strategy in St. Paul. A coalition of green groups is expected to purchase TV time to attack the administration manifesto in key markets. Congressional Democrats temporarily commandeered a Capitol Hill gas station to plug their competing energy initiative. For the environmental community--and the Democrats in Congress who support their causes-Thursday's roll-out of the Bush administration's comprehensive energy plan will be the political equivalent of D-day. "The environmental community is going to put more money into this than any other campaign in its history because there is so much at stake," said Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. "What they are assembling is an all-out attack on environmental protections." Nasty little creatures, they! What a difference a few years and a change in leadership can make...and not in a good way! The Obama energy policy, praised and heralded by the greens, has left the American people broke and deeply in debt, out of work, paying high energy prices and, if you live in the flooded areas of New Jersey, Atlantic City and other towns and cities affected by Sandy, without much hope for a quick recovery. The American people have an opportunity to change the direction of this country next Tuesday. Romney is prepared to change our energy policy. If you haven't already done so be sure you vote. It's time to get America back on track but we need adults with common sense in leadership positions. Its up to us Pilgrims. The Bush plan document is here. HT: The American Thinker
Recent Comments
Tina: Bush Had a Plan to Upgrade Eastern Power Grid - Dems & Greens Blocked It Chris: Bush Had a Plan to Upgrade Eastern Power Grid - Dems & Greens Blocked It Tina: Bush Had a Plan to Upgrade Eastern Power Grid - Dems & Greens Blocked It Chris: Bush Had a Plan to Upgrade Eastern Power Grid - Dems & Greens Blocked It Tina: Bush Had a Plan to Upgrade Eastern Power Grid - Dems & Greens Blocked It Tina: Bush Had a Plan to Upgrade Eastern Power Grid - Dems & Greens Blocked It Chris: Bush Had a Plan to Upgrade Eastern Power Grid - Dems & Greens Blocked It Libby : Bush Had a Plan to Upgrade Eastern Power Grid Dems & Greens Blocked It Tina: Bush Had a Plan to Upgrade Eastern Power Grid - Dems & Greens Blocked It Tina: Bush Had a Plan to Upgrade Eastern Power Grid - Dems & Greens Blocked It
Recent Entries
Post Sc ripts: Here We Go... VOTER FRAUD!!! Post Sc ripts: NBC Investigation Uncovers Massive Voter Fraud In CA
16 Comments
Libby | November 1, 2012 11:39 AM | Reply
Post Sc ripts: Voter Alert - Obama's Poor Record Using His Own Words Post Sc ripts: Voter Alert - Bring Your Camera Phone to the Polls! Post Sc ripts: Latest Polling - Romney Wins Post Sc ripts: Newspapers Endorse Romney Post Sc ripts: Don't underestimate a woman just because she is beautiful..... Post Sc ripts: Government Spending Reality Check Post Sc ripts: Election Thoughts Post Sc ripts: Latest Electoral Count
Tina, the Bush energy plan was all about sourcing: oil wells in national parks, expanded coal burning, and so on. Nothing in it at all about burying power lines on a huge scale, which that Eastern Seaboard needs to start thinking seriously about. And Tina, if the power plant is flooded ... you're cooked, or froze ... making partisan policy squabbles entirely beside the point.
Tina | November 1, 2012 12:51 PM | Reply
www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2012/11/bush-had-a-plan-to-upgrad.html
1/19
1/18/13
Tag Cloud
Not true Libby. If you read the proposal you will find it includes proposals for upgrading the grids in the east, in California (both have had brown outs and they've had blackouts in the east) and in other areas around the country. If the power plant is flooded it will cause one local problem but an upgraded grid would allow for quicker response overall once that problem is fixed. The larger point is the stupidity of throwing money at alternative energy companies that are now either bankrupt or failing badly or the stupidity of blocking coal and oil production. Another important point is the special interest politics that blocked improvements that would put Americans in a better position today. Before you go preaching about partisan politics and natural disaster remind your self of the despicable campaign to destroy Bush over Katrina.
Afghanistan Disaster global warming GOP Homeland security http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/ immigration joke marijuana Meg Whitman Obama Peter King racism reloading socialized medicine weight loss
#1 .223
arizona healthcare
Categories More NorCalBlog Entries

Watts Up With That: ENSO 2013 Boy or Girl? Watts Up With That: Why El Nio and not the AMO? Sow There!: Bare-root planting helps blur the gray From outside the box: On Moving, Yard Sales, And My Dog Freddy Chico, Sustainable: Think Chico has a lot of School Gardens? Think again. POST SCRIPTS: Hillary Clinton Video Story on Benghazi Made 16+ Minutes Before Incident? POST SCRIPTS: Rubio on Republican Agenda
Libby | November 1, 2012 3:11 PM | Reply
"The larger point is the stupidity of throwing money at alternative energy companies ...." It's called R&D, and it is risky, but a nation that don't pursue it would be a very foolish nation. "... or the stupidity of blocking coal and oil production." Where HAVE you been? Breathing burning coal makes you sick, and the oil's done peaked. It's time to look into other options. "Before you go preaching about partisan politics and natural disaster remind your self of the despicable campaign to destroy Bush over Katrina." Bush was criticized, rightly, for putting a dilettante in charge of FEMA resulting in the horror that was the Super Dome. Obama put a professional in the post and, so far, they've been really lucky. But it won't last. There are indications today that lots of people are failing to come to terms with the fact that their "normal" life is over ... for the time being. They will be running out of gas, food and cash, and are about to become extremely uncomfortable. And then they will misbehave. Some thousands of rather stupid Brooklyners actually thought they were going to be able to take busses into Manhattan today. Nope. Maybe Monday ... maybe.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Post Scripts published on November 1, 2012 10:59 A M. Warning was "Specific" and "Direct" - Kathryn Herridge on New Evidence, Benghazi was the previous entry in this blog. More On Benghazi, Top Military Officers Fired is the next entry in this blog. Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.
Libby: "It's called R&D, and it is risky, but a nation that don't pursue it would be a very foolish nation." Since it is R&D "a nation" that doesn't leave it to the private sector to bear the costs and face the risk is being foolish with the people's money! Our leaders have a fiduciary responsibility that should dissuade them from taking risks on such projects or incurring the debt that failure inevitably brings. "Where HAVE you been? Breathing burning coal makes you sick, and the oil's done peaked. It's time to look into other options." Where have YOU been! Oil has not peaked. http://beforeitsnews.com/energy/2011/01/oil-oil-and-more-oil-america-has-more-than-any-othernation-376642.html The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadnt been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota , western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana .. check THIS out: The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska s Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable at $107 a barrel, were looking at a resource base worth more than $53 trillion. When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislatures financial analyst. This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years, reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette . Its a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the Bakken. It stretches from Northern Montana , through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the Big Oil companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakkens massive reserves.. and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL! Thats enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didnt throw you on the floor, then this next one should because its from 2006! U S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World Stansberry Report Online 4/20/2006 Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2012/11/bush-had-a-plan-to-upgrad.html 8, 2005 President Bush
2/19
1/18/13
reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling? They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.. Here are the official estimates: - 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia - 18-times as much oil as Iraq - 21-times as much oil as Kuwait - 22-times as much oil as Iran - 500-times as much oil as Yemen - and its all right here in the Western United States . HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy..WHY? James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says weve got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. Thats more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post .
Also oil is a renewable resource: http://metaresearch.org/publications/bulletin/2007issues/0915/Mrb07cp5.asp The deep-gas theory presumes that there are vast amounts of hydrocarbons in the earth at depths far in excess of the ability of man to drill for, or even sample them, but this is no obstacle to exploiting them, since these sources continually rise to the surface in metered amounts. Evidence for the abiogenic theory is of seven main types: (continues) And finally, the coal industry has already cleaned up its act in terms of pollutants and is willing to do more as it can. It does not appreciate the extreme position of Barack Hussein Obama who said about the coal industry four years ago, "...if you build a coal plant, you can go ahead, but youll go bankrupt." And he meant it! He has designed EPA restrictions to be so costly and burdensome that coal plants are closing as a result and all plans for building new more modern plants have been scrapped. Thousands of coal miners have lost their jobs unnecessarily. His is a cold and calculating approach and it has been bad for most of America. "Other " options were being explored before this dim bulb took office and they will be explored after he's gone. Some of those exploring the alternatives are those in the oil and gas industries. A lot of the so called R&D the government has subsidized have been a complete debacle. It is better left to those who know the industry and have the resources to "explore" the alternatives without putting the American taxpayer in debt. "Bush was criticized, rightly, for putting a dilettante in charge of FEMA resulting in the horror that was the Super Dome." If you think that then you should also hold Obama responsible for the deaths in Benghazi and whatever problems come down the pike (and they will) after Sandy. I won't hold my breath on either count. FEMA is a bureaucracy....Obama's so-called "professional" will not run it any better than Brown did. The Bummer man didn't let this crisis go to waste. He jumped at the chance to look "presidential" even though going to the area, and dragging his security needs behind him, required local responders to stop and handle his security requirements when they could be helping those in need. What a doofus...a flyover inspection would have been more thoughtful...and less opportunistic. Between the looters, the rats, the raw sewage and the shortage of energy this is going to turn into a hellish situation...and Obama will be praised for his brilliance by the sycophants in the media. I understand another storm is brewing too (God help them).
Chris | November 2, 2012 10:39 AM | Reply
What is your basis for the claim that "conditions for recovery on the east coast today would be much more favorable" if the Bush plan had passed? I think it's important to note that one of the concerns cited by the opposition to the Bush plan was global warming. There is growing evidence that global warming played a role in the severity of the hurricane. http://www.google.com/search? q=hurricane+sandy+global+warming&rlz=1C1TSNP_enUS487US487&oq=hurricane+sandy+global+warming&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF8 I don't see how Bush's energy plan, which would have accelerated global warming, would make things better for the victims of Hurricane Sandy, or how it would make us safer from future climate catastrophes.
3/19
1/18/13
(This is your cue to make yourself look foolish by pretending global warming isn't real.) Your claims about Obama and green energy are breathtakingly dishonest. As Jon Stewart has pointed out, the failure rate for green energy companies that have received stimulus money is only 8% (not, as Mitt Romney has ludicrously claimed, "half"). 92% of green energy investments under Obama have been successful. To put that in perspective, 22% of companies that Bain Capital invested in while Romney led the firm went bankrupt, while only 78% were successful. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-25-2012/picking-winners---losers But please, tell me more about how much better Mitt Romney and the private sector are at investing than President Obama and the government. "FEMA is a bureaucracy....Obama's so-called "professional" will not run it any better than Brown did." Well, Brown seems to agree with you. He has criticized the president for acting too "quickly" in response to the hurricane. Because, as we all know, Brown's slow, bumbling and inefficient response to Katrina is the model we should all aspire to: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/ex-fema-director-michael-brown-criticizes-obama-reacting202803013.html But Brown has already backed down from that criticism, and somehow made it even worse, saying that he was actually talking about how the president could have gotten more "milage" out of this tragedy: "The President should have justhe could have just made a comment while he was in Florida that says, you know my FEMA director is on top of this and were gonna do everything we can when the states ask us to come in and help. Boom. He would have been better served politically to let everybody elseBloomberg, Christie, Cuomo, ODonnell [sic] all of them make whatever statements they were going to make. Call for their evacuations. And then he could have stepped up, very presidentially, and said And by the way, I have instructed my FEMA director to give the states whatever they need as the storm approaches. I think he would have gotten more mileage out of it. In other words, he peaked too soon." When asked by Sirota whether he had any substantive criticism of the Obama administrations response, however, Brown replied the answer is: no, I dont." http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/31/1114891/brown-says-obama-should-have-squeezedmore-political-mileage/ This might seem to add even further embarassment to Brown's legacy, but it's nothing that can't be solved by him never speaking in public again. "Between the looters, the rats, the raw sewage and the shortage of energy this is going to turn into a hellish situation...and Obama will be praised for his brilliance by the sycophants in the media." Yes, Obama's comerades in the lamestream media like Chris Christie, Bob McDowell and Matthew Dowd. What a bunch of traitors, refusing to politicize the hurricane and giving credit where credit is due. Don't they know there is an election coming?! http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/storm-provides-obama-with-a-commander-inchief-moment/2012/10/30/5e645952-22c2-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story_1.html
R. Charan Pagan | November 2, 2012 11:37 AM | Reply
By the best sources, the Bush plan sucked and needed to be scrapped. The document you link to is a report by the Department of Energy, not what was in the Bush plan. Were you being deceptive intentionally or was that a mistake?
Tina | November 2, 2012 11:51 AM | Reply
Thanks for expressing your opinion R. Charan Pagan. Would I be correct in surmising that you support alternative energy and perhaps even hate the oil industry? If so we are not at all surprised that you think his plan "sucked". those who bought into the climate change lie are often against common sense approaches to our energy and infrastructure needs and you don't mind throwing other peoples money down a rat hole to pursue alternatives that have not been proven or perfected. If, on the other hand, you actually have information that would show that the Bush proposal "sucked" we'd love to discuss it.
Tina | November 2, 2012 11:54 AM | Reply
Chris I have to leave now but will reply later tonight.
Libby replied to comment from Tina | November 2, 2012 12:17 PM | Reply
"FEMA is a bureaucracy....Obama's so-called "professional" will not run it any better than Brown did." Ah, but he is. Corralling private sector, portable power sources; commandeering military cargo planes; suspending obstructive legislation ... I'm damned impressed. But I can see where you'd be sad.
4/19
1/18/13
Chris | November 2, 2012 12:34 PM | Reply
Tina: "those who bought into the climate change lie" When 97-98% of currently publishing climate scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by human activity, then the best bet is that it is not a lie, but...actual science. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700085458/Global-warming-consensus-matters.html?pg=all "are often against common sense approaches to our energy and infrastructure needs and you don't mind throwing other peoples money down a rat hole to pursue alternatives that have not been proven or perfected." Again, money has not been thrown "down a rate hole." Your favorite target, Solyndra, represented a mere 1.4% of the Dept. of Energy's investment in renweable technologies. 8% of the companies the Obama administration has invested in have gone bankrupt, while 92% are still up and running. That's a better success rate than Bain Capital's. It is you who is letting irrational bias cloud your judgment, not those who acknowledge the reality climate change and the need for government investments in alternative energy. Also, this "war on coal" crap is easily disproven by the fact that coal production and coal jobs in Ohio are up since the Bush administration. http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/oct/31/sherrod-brown/sherrod-brown-says-coaljobs-and-coal-production-b/ Now back to your regularly scheduled fearmongering narrative.
Libby by the time the weekend is over you may be more than embarrassed. The headlines this evening: Drivers Waiting 6 Hours For Gas in NYC... Tempers Rise in Wake of Storm... 'Finding bodies left and right'... Restaurant, hotel prices skyrocket... CHUCK SCHUMER CONFRONTED: 'We Are Gonna Die!' Utility workers pelted with eggs... Misery... 'We have nothing'... Residents Furious RED CROSS Offering Cookies & Hot Chocolate, Not Blankets Or Clothes... Jet Fuel Supply Fast Becoming Concern At Airports... Staten Islanders Plead for Help: 'We Need Food'... 'Please don't leave us'... VIDEO: Stranded New Yorkers Defecating in Apartment Buildings... (Oh dear) DIRE... NJ counties enact 70s style gas rationing... Developing... You can read all of these articles simply by going to The Drudge Report: http://www.drudgereport.com/ At this point in the aftermath of Katrina George Bush and FEMA were already being demeaned and excoriated because they hadn't "done enough" to "help those poor people"...and you, like a fool, bought the entire spin that after something like this it is possible to take all the misery away...say by a President showing up for a photo op. As I have recently written...all I expect is that those serving America be judged by the media using the same yardstick.
Chris: "(This is your cue to make yourself look foolish by pretending global warming isn't real.)" Could you be any more arrogant and childish? Those interested in an alternative adult opinion can read these articles: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/10/31/leave-it-to-the-global-warming-alarmists-tomake-fake-lemonade-out-of-hurricane-sandy/ As Hurricane Sandy prepared to strike the Northeast, climate scientists from alarmist and skeptical camps alike reported the storm had little if anything to do with global warming. Martin
5/19
1/18/13
Hoerling, who chairs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAAs) climate variability research program, and who oversees NOAAs Climate Scene Investigators, observed, neither the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over the North Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change, nor have there been indications of a change in their statistical behavior over this region in recent decades. Hoerling further explained, In this case, the immediate cause is most likely little more that the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm. Both frequent the west Atlantic in Octobernothing unusual with that. On rare occasions their timing is such as to result in an interaction which can lead to an extreme event along the eastern seaboard.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/03/despite-20th-century-minor-warming-ice-cores-indicate-earthis-still-cooling-since-the-minoan-period.html Regardless of the claims and protestations of Obama, Osama bin Laden, Gordon Brown, Paul Krugman, Tom Friedman, Robert Mugabe, Kevin Rudd, Hugo Chavez, Brad DeLong, and other radical, leftist-totalitarian progressives, the recent global warming that ceased since 1998 was not that unusual. The earth constantly experiences extended periods of natural warming and cooling that significantly impacts the overall climate. And since 1998, temperatures have been flat to cooling, depending on which part of the world one lives in, it would not be unusual at all for the earth to continue to cool for a period, nor would it be unusual for it to resume its warming since the Little Ice Age - scientists simply don't know which way temperatures are headed. Despite the warming blip from the mid-1970's to the late 1990's, we do know the Northern Hemisphere has been locked in a long-term cooling cycle that goes back some 3,000+ years, as the Greenland ice cores reveal. (click image to enlarge) The hysterical response to the recent warming by liberal-leftists is indicative of an agenda approach to science and history, lacking in both rational and empirical attributes. To hyperventilate about current temperatures, while ignoring the context of historical temperature change, is best described as voodoo science. And as we have all witnessed, this newest form of the voodoo science has resulted in the recent years of wild catastrophic climate predictions that never seem to happen. http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of-failed-obama-green-energy-solar-companies/ "As Jon Stewart has pointed out, the failure rate for green energy companies that have received stimulus money is only 8%" Jon Stewart huh? Big whoop. A list of failed companies and other information is in the following article (scroll down for list)...and please keep in mind that we are talking about taxpayer money not private money...there is a very BIG difference: http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of-failed-obama-green-energy-solar-companies/ Your record is 0 for 300, rather 0 for $6 T(r)illion in taxpayer debt. The crony capitalism in this flagrant spending is also disgusting (Obama against it in 2008) http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021612-601508-obama-green-energy-scandal-growsdeeper.htm While the legacy media often shills for Democrats, sometimes an outlet surprises us, as the Washington Post did with this week's story outlining the shady Obama links to the clean-energy industry and implying the administration has engaged in first-class corruption. Post reporters, for instance, "found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers." Named in the story is Sanjay Wagle, "venture capitalist" and "Obama fundraiser" who joined the Energy Department, which "provided $2.4 billion in public funding to clean-energy companies in which Wagle's former firm, Vantage Point Venture Partners, had invested." And there's Steven Spinner, a "bundler of Obama campaign contributions who," we noted last fall, became an adviser at the Energy Department where he "pushed hard" for the Solyndra loan. Spinner is also married to a partner in the law firm that represented Solyndra. Going deeper, we find Steve Westly, identified by the Post as "an Obama fundraising bundler" who "served part time" on an Energy Department advisory board and "communicated with senior White House officials." The Post reported that Westly's firm "fared well in the agency's distribution of loans and grants. Its portfolio companies received $600 million in funding." Also appearing in emails examined by the Post was David Prend, another venture capital investor with "White House access." Prend's company, Rockport Capital Partners, has been an investor in "several firms" that raked $550 million in federal money. Prend is linked, as well, to Ener1, the bankrupt electric-car battery company given a $118 million government grant. TAXPAYER MONEY! (Or debt to be born by...you!) "But please, tell me more about how much better Mitt Romney and the private sector are at investing
6/19
1/18/13
than President Obama and the government." The government doesn't "invest"...it spends! If you can't see that difference there is no point in discussing it further. Regarding Brown, FEMA, Obama...its a bureaucracy and it will function as a bureaucracy, badly, and the media will give Obama and his director a pass because he is a Democrat. Obama needed the photo op badly so he flew to New Jersey like the self-centered progressive he is. Brown is a victim of the vindictive smear machine media and he would have been such if the day after Katrina the entire area was back to normal. The real problems in Katrina, other than the structural problems with the levies and the criminal element, flowed from the poor response of the governor and the mayor (both Democrats). Neither had a plan for such an event nor did they know what to do when it happened.
Tina: "Could you be any more arrogant and childish?" Yes. I could be a global warming denier. It is extremely arrogant and childish to pretend to know more than 98% of climate scientists on this issue, simply because you have a political agenda. "Those interested in an alternative adult opinion can read these articles:" One of the articles you linked to groups our president in with Osama bin Laden as "leftist-totalitarian progressives!" That is an "adult opinion" to you? You shame yourself. If you think it is even remotely accurate to call Osama bin Laden a "leftist" or "progressive," then you simply lack a 12th grade literacy of politics, sociology, and history, and you are not qualified to give an "adult opinion" on any of these topics. Al Qaeda is, by definition, a radical far-right movement. That article takes the dishonest tactic of implying that only Bad People We Don't Like believe in global warming, completely ignoring the fact that a scientific consensus exists. That's not "adult" argumentation, Tina, it's an appeal to ignorance. "Jon Stewart huh? Big whoop." Well, is he wrong? FactCheck.org has a somewhat different estimate, at 89% green investment success (which is still pretty damn good): "Romney falsely claimed about half of the clean-energy companies that received U.S.-backed loans have gone out of business. But 26 companies received loan guarantees under a loan program cited by Romney, and three of those have filed for bankruptcy. The three firms were approved for about 6 percent of the loan guarantees." http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-clean-energy-whoppers/ "A list of failed companies and other information is in the following article (scroll down for list)...and please keep in mind that we are talking about taxpayer money not private money...there is a very BIG difference:" Unlike Jon Stewart, who you just mocked, your source fails to compare the number that have failed with the number that have succeeded. (You always have had trouble understanding that percentages matter.) Furthermore, most of the loans were fairly low-risk, and many of them have been sold to private equity firms responsible for paying back the loans: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05/25/marc-thiessen-distorts-success-rate-of-clean-en/186692 "The crony capitalism in this flagrant spending is also disgusting (Obama against it in 2008)" There was no crony capitalism. From FactCheck.org: "An ad from the Romney campaign strains facts to make its point that federal grants and loans to green-energy companies were improperly steered to Obamas political backers, and that federal money was wasted on failing companies that are now laying off employees. -It claims the inspector general said contracts were steered to friends and family. But thats not exactly what the inspector general said. And in the year since he said he was investigating such alleged schemes, no public charges have been made, at least not yet. -The ad highlights the struggles company losses, nose-diving stock and layoffs at several companies that received substantial Department of Energy loans and grants. The ad fails to note, however, that most of the layoffs at those companies were overseas, or that the projects backed by DOE are largely moving along as planned. An independent review of the DOE program says its failure rate has been better than anticipated. -The ad uses an inflated figure from a partisan source to quantify loans and grants that went to Obama donors... ...We found Schweizers $16.4 billion claim to be too high by nearly $6 billion. But that still leaves billions of dollars that went to companies run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers. Payola? One might expect that a healthy percentage of owners of green-energy companies might lean Democratic, so its not surprising that some loans and grants went to companies run by Democratic donors. Some went to Republican donors as well. The question is whether those federal dollars were improperly or unfairly steered to donors in a quid pro quo arrangement."
7/19
1/18/13
Tina: "Regarding Brown, FEMA, Obama...its a bureaucracy and it will function as a bureaucracy, badly, and the media will give Obama and his director a pass because he is a Democrat." Are you honestly saying that Gov. Chris Christie is praising Obama because he is a Democrat? Jesus, Tina. If Chris Christie is praising the president the week of the election, it's because he's doing a damn good job! "The government doesn't "invest"...it spends! If you can't see that difference there is no point in discussing it further." This is such a crazy and idiotic position, that I guess there is no point in discussing this further. If you are committed to the unreasonable position that government investment is literally impossible, then we can't have a reasonable discussion.
Chris: It is extremely arrogant and childish to pretend to know more than 98% of climate scientists on this issue, simply because you have a political agenda. A. You assume my position is based on politics rather than the opinions of scientists, highly regarded experts in the field. B. You assume that the 98% of scientists you believe is made up of scientists that are experts in the field. C. You assume that these scientists are in it for science rather than politics and/or money. D. You ignore the evidence put forward by scientists that dont share the so-called consensus view of the 98%. E. You ignore the evidence that key points in the man made warming theory dont hold up because key members in the 98% didnt follow the scientific method in their workthey doctored evidence and attempted to control peer review. F. You assume I am pretending when I am not. Al Qaeda is, by definition, a radical far-right movement. Is it? Lets seethis radical movement wants government control over every aspect of life: social, business and financial, legal, religious, and governmental. That is big government in spades, something that is much more closely aligned to progressive thinking than it is conservatism...more left wing than right wing. All of the totalitarian leaders of the 20th Century shared similar socialist goalsMarx, Lenin, Engels, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Sayyed Ali Khamenei, Robert Mugabee, Slobodon Melosevic, Idi Amin, Sadam Husseinthe list goes on. They were different faces of socialist ideology and method. http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/fascism-a-socialist-leftwing-ideologycommunism-fascism-labor-unions-workers-and-students-exploiting-crisis/ The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. [And in fact, Both movements were "revolutionary socialist ideologies." Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26]. ... ...were seeing these same forces that gave us first communism and then fascism banding (perhaps mobbing is a better verb) together to produce the same inevitable results. And in fact we have both the Nazis and the Communists joining the labor unions and the intelligentsia, students and artists in their Occupy movement. And were seeing this happen on a scale that the world has not seen since the WWI (Soviet communism) and WWII (Nazi fascism) eras. RE: Obamas green energy failures: You have offered percentages without naming a single company. Can you name a handful of successful green energy companies that received loans or money from Obama? I havent heard him tout any specifically but I have heard about a lot that have failed or are failing and have sent tax money to other countries...and we are NOT talking pennies! Heres one example from media: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57358484/tax-dollars-backing-some-risky-energyprojects/?tag=mncol;lst;2 CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra. Others are also struggling with potential problems. Nevada Geothermal -- a home state project personally endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- warns of multiple potential defaults in new SEC filings reviewed by CBS News. It was already having trouble paying the bills when it
8/19
1/18/13
received $98.5 million in Energy Department loan guarantees. SunPower landed a deal linked to a $1.2 billion loan guarantee last fall, after a French oil company took it over. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth. SunPower's role is to design, build and initially operate and maintain the California Valley Solar Ranch Project that's the subject of the loan guarantee. First Solar was the biggest S&P 500 loser in 2011 and its CEO was cut loose - even as taxpayers were forced to back a whopping $3 billion in company loans.
There was no crony capitalism. http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2012/11/01/emails_catch_white_house_lie_on_greenenergy_loans/page/full/ When he is confronted about the failed green-energy loan program, President Obama deflects blamepointing to career bureaucrats in the Department of Energy (DOE) who supposedly approved the loans that have become an embarrassment to the White House. For months, along with researcher Christine Lakotos, Ive been reporting on, first, the junk-bond rated projects (such as Solyndra) that received fast-tracked approval from the DOE and, then, the failed and troubled stimulus funded companies. Solyndra was just the tip of the iceberg. Embarrassment after embarrassment has come to light as the projects touted as the hope for Americas future have filed for bankruptcy, sent money and jobs overseas, and faced technical difficulties. The 1705 loan guarantee program had 460 applicants, but only 7% were approved26 projects were funded. Of those 26 projects 22 were junk-bond ratedmeaning private investors wouldnt fund them. So why did we, the taxpayers? Our research showed that at least 90% of the projects had close ties to the White House and other high ranking Democrats. Despite the obvious connection, President Obama has repeatedly denied any involvementpreferring to blame career bureaucrats who could take the fall with no political consequence. In March, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, testified that, We looked at the loans on their own merits. Also, back in November 2011, he said: I am aware of no communication from White House to Department of Energy saying to make the loan or to restructure. Just last week, on October 26, President Obama affirmed Chus position when he said: Decisions made in the loan program office are decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy, they have nothing to do with politics. However, late Wednesday, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a new report of over 150 emails that contradict statements by the President, Secretary Chu, and White House and DOE officials. The emails reveal a series of questionable practices, including coercion, cronyism and, cover ups. ... ...Some of the incriminating evidence includes the following: From an email dated March 1, 2010 from David Schmitzer, DOE LPO Director of Loan Origination to LPO Credit Advisor McCrea and others: Jonathan just said at our staff meeting that, opposite the message received on Thursday, AREVA is now a go (seems on Friday POTUS himself approved moving it ahead). From an email dated June 25, 2010, LPO Executive Director Jonathan Silver encourages LPO Credit Advisor Jim McCrea to remind a Treasury official of White House Interest in now bankrupt Abound Solar: "You better let him know that WH wants to move Abound forward. Policy will have to wait unless they have a specific policy problem with abound. From an email dated September 9, 2010 from LPO Credit Advisor McCrea to DOE contractor Brian Oakley: "Pressure is on real heavy on SF [Shepherds Flat] due to interest from VP. Are you honestly saying that Gov. Chris Christie is praising Obama because he is a Democrat? I never mentioned Chris Christie; we were discussing FEMA and bureaucracy. If you are committed to the unreasonable position that government investment is literally impossible, then we can't have a reasonable discussion. I told you there was no point in discussing it but it is, none the less, something you should considerit is your future! When government takes money from its citizens and uses that money to prop up a company it is not an investment, it is an expense or it becomes debt which is future liability. The government will not realize profits or incur losses from the product or service of the company...the company will. The government also takes no risk, as private investors do, since it can print money or place the burden of
9/19
1/18/13
the debt on the shoulders of taxpayers (and future taxpayers). Calling this kind of government spending an investment is purely political. It is designed to confuse people into thinking that government (under our free capitalist system) is equivalent to the private sector...possibly superior. It is a means to an end...convincing the citizens that government control of the private sector is good. That is socialist thinking. That this government is spending on green energy almost exclusively should be your first clue that something unseemly is afootit is simply a political ploy used to control the free market (socialism/fascism/corporatism) and pick who in the market will win and who will lose (totalitarian control).
Tina: "A. You assume my position is based on politics rather than the opinions of scientists, highly regarded experts in the field." All 2% of them? Many of the scientists cited by global warming deniers aren't even climate scientists: "Bob Lutz, former vice chairman of General Motors, said on national television, In the opinion of about 32,000 of the worlds leading scientists, yes (global warming is a hoax). The 32,000 leading scientists 9,000 saying they have Ph.D.s come from a petition by the George C. Marshall Institute, an outfit funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from Exxon-Mobil that has helped create uncertainty over scientific consensus on global warming. The petition came with a cover letter by Frederick Seitz, a scientist who received much money from the R.J. Reynolds cigarette company and helped to create uncertainty over medical consensus on the harms of tobacco smoke. To qualify as one of the worlds leading scientists, one merely needed to sign the petition. And anyone could sign it no affiliation is given so the names cant be verified. Hawkeye Pierce was one of the signatories." http://www.rgj.com/article/20101228/NEWS20/101228012/Fact-checker-Don-t-see-consensus-globalwarming-Look-past-Fox-News "B. You assume that the 98% of scientists you believe is made up of scientists that are experts in the field." This is not an assumption; it's a fact: "Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had masters degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures." http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm "C. You assume that these scientists are in it for science rather than politics and/or money." I'd say you could say the same thing about the minority of scientists who deny global warming who are funded by big oil and other corporate interests, which pressure them to deny: "In one example, New Scientist reported on congressional testimony in 2007 about 435 incidents where climate scientists say they were pressured to downplay global warming. In another instance that came out in court documents, a fossil-fuel-industry group called the Global Climate Coalition asked its scientists about global warming caused by human activity and they reported back, The scientific basis is well established and cannot be denied. Not only that, its scientists concluded that those who were skeptical of global warming do not offer convincing arguments. Despite this internal document similar to actions by the tobacco industry the fossil fuel industry continued to sow confusion about climate change, until the coalition disbanded in 2002. The New York Times noted last year, (Other fossil fuel companies and groups), like Exxon Mobil, now recognize a human contribution to global warming and have largely dropped financial support to groups challenging the science." http://www.rgj.com/article/20101228/NEWS20/101228012/Fact-checker-Don-t-see-consensus-globalwarming-Look-past-Fox-News "D. You ignore the evidence put forward by scientists that dont share the so-called consensus view of the 98%." I don't ignore it, and it's not a "so-called" consensus. I have seen the evidence from the few actively publishing climatologists who do not believe in global warming, and I have also seen their evidence debunked. "E. You ignore the evidence that key points in the man made warming theory dont hold up because key members in the 98% didnt follow the scientific method in their workthey doctored evidence and attempted to control peer review." Debunked:
10/19
1/18/13
"A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming." http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm "F. You assume I am pretending when I am not." It was a generous assumption, given the alternative. "Is it? Lets seethis radical movement wants government control over every aspect of life..." *sigh* I'm not going to get into this with you right now. It's stupid. Al Qaeda is a religious right organization. They are not "progressive" by any reasonable definition; they do not support rights for women, religious minorities, or anyone else who is not them. They are not "conservative" in the American sense, but in the sense that they want to return to a very traditional and regressive model of society. Anyway, the main point was that you claimed it was an "adult opinion" to group in the president of the United States with the leader of the world's worst terrorist group--which the president had killed, by the way!--in order to make people who agree with the scientific consensus on global warming look bad by association. That was shameful, Tina. "RE: Obamas green energy failures: You have offered percentages without naming a single company. Can you name a handful of successful green energy companies that received loans or money from Obama?" FactCheck.org has the deets about a lot of the companies that have been targeted by conservatives: First Solar The ads first example is First Solar, a global provider of solar modules. Of First Solar, the ad states: Three billion dollars in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. Now theyre cutting jobs and their stock is near all-time lows. Its true that First Solar secured federal loan guarantees of more than $3 billion for three major solar projects. (And got them after spending $2.2 million on Washington lobbying since 2007.) After arranging and negotiating financing options, all three projects were promptly sold, to NextEra Energy, NRG Energy and Exelon. So First Solar no longer owns the DOE loan guarantees (though it is building the plants for those companies so much of the federally guaranteed loan money is certainly flowing its way). Ted Meyer, a spokesman for First Solar, said that despite the ads implication that First Solar was another Solyndra deal, the structure of the loans is very different. The loans for the projects are backed by long-term contracts from major energy companies in California to purchase the power generated by the solar plants. Its true that First Solar is cutting jobs, but most of them have been overseas... According to Meyer, more than 90 percent of the staff reductions from the April restructuring of the company were outside the U.S. Those layoffs are wholly unrelated to the three projects funded by DOE, Meyer said. Those three solar projects will employ about 1,200 people during the three-year construction phase, Meyer said, and about 12 people per site permanently. As for U.S. jobs, Greentech Media reported First Solar furloughed 120 of its 240 employees at its DOEbacked Antelope Valley solar project in California. But contrary to a Fox News report that originally ran under the headline Obama-Funded Solar Firm Lays Off Half Its Workforce (it was later changed), thats just one project First Solar is working on. It is unrelated to the company restructuring, Meyer said, and is due to an unresolved code issue with the county. Once that issue is resolved, he said, First Solar plans to expand construction there again. As for First Solar stock being near all-time lows, its true that the price is lower than it has been in more than six years. The crude graphic in the ad seems to suggest the stock has dropped to $4 per share, but thats not accurate. It was trading at $13.40 on May 30, but that is still down precipitously from its high of $311.14 in May 2008. Meyer released this company statement about the ad: Its surprising a candidate that claims to support U.S. economic growth would criticize a great American success story like First Solar. First Solar has proven that an American company can compete and win in renewable energy globally, and our success supports almost 10,000 American jobs, more than $1 billion in U.S. purchasing, tens of millions of dollars in exports, and record-setting innovation that reduces pollution and enhances U.S. energy security. ECOtality The ad states that San Francisco-based ECOtality has received $126 million in taxpayer money. Lost $45 million, and currently under investigation. Thats not quite accurate. In October 2011, ECOtality Inc. was awarded a $26.4 million contract from the Department of Energy to conduct advanced vehicle battery testing and evaluation for DOE. Previously, ECOtality was awarded a $114.8 million grant to install 14,000 electric car chargers in five states. As part of the arrangement, for every dollar spent by ECOtality, the federal government reimburses it 45.8 cents. The remainder of the cost of the project is picked up by private investment
11/19
1/18/13
money from companies like Nissan and GM. To date, the company has received about $42 million from DOE. So the ad is technically incorrect to say the company has received all of the $126 million. But it will if the project is completed in 2013, as expected. Also, the ad doesnt mention anything about jobs in relation to ECOtality, but the Recovery Act website reports that the company projected the grant would create 144 jobs. According to company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company posted net losses of $22.5 million in 2011, and $16.4 million in 2010. But on a positive note, the company reported that the first quarter of 2012 was its first profitable quarter, with net income of $1.2 million. On a decidedly less positive note, the company confirmed that it has received subpoenas from the SEC as part of a fact-finding inquiry related to the trading of shares between Aug. 1, 2008, and Aug. 31, 2009. The Heritage Foundation obtained and posted a copy of the subpoena sent to the companys CEO. According to CBS News, the company is under investigation for insider trading. SunPower Lastly, the Romney ad targets the solar company SunPower, saying: More than a billion dollars in loan guarantees. Lost half a billion last year. Laying off workers. On Sept. 30, 2011, SunPower got a $1.2 billion loan guarantee to build the California Valley Solar Ranch Project, a 250-megawatt solar plant in San Luis Obispo County, Calif. And SunPower reported an operating loss of $534 million last year. But after that, the ads case starts to fall apart. Before any federal funds were released, SunPower sold the project to NRG Energy. So NRG is the owner of the loan guarantees and the company responsible for repaying them. SunPower is now the lead contractor on the project. Despite its losses, SunPower is financially solvent, and as the same KGO-TV report cited in the Romney ad notes the companys new majority stockholder is Total, a French company that ranks among the top oil and energy companies in the world. As for SunPower layoffs, according to a public filing with the SEC last November, the company did announce that it would be laying off 85 employees. But as was the case with First Solar, most of those layoffs were overseas, and represented a small fraction of the companys global workforce. In its public filing, the company stated that it was consolidating or closing facilities in Europe in response to reductions in European government incentives, primarily in Italy, which have had a significant impact on the global solar market. The number of layoffs ended up being less, a company spokeswoman told us, and together with newly created jobs, the net reduction was 41 jobs. More important, the jobs related to the DOE-backed California Valley Solar Ranch are unaffected. According to SunPower, more than 350 workers are currently constructing the solar power plant. The plant, company officials said, will begin generating 25 megawatts of power by September, and when completed will generate enough electricity to power 100,000 California homes (and is already contracted to do so). According to Bloomberg News, even with the losses from Solyndra, the default rate for the DOEs loans to solar, wind and bio-energy projects is less than 3.6 percent, less than a third of what the White House anticipated. So Romney is using the same lemon-picking strategies that critics of his Bain years use choosing a few sour specifics to give a misleading picture of the larger reality. And hes straining facts and misquoting a leading investigator as well. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-solar-flareout/ You link to Townhall to prove that there was crony capitalism, but a) Townhall is an extremely biased source and b) it doesn't even show political favoritism! As FactCheck pointed out, it shouldn't be regarded as strange that a lot of the green companies are run by Democrats, since Democrats are much more likely to support green energy. That hardly points to a conspiracy. "I never mentioned Chris Christie; we were discussing FEMA and bureaucracy." You claimed that Obama would be praised undeservedly by the media because he is a Democrat, even though you don't think he has done an impressive job. I pointed out that he has already recieved the praise of very conservative politicians who don't want Obama to get a second term, who say he is doing a great job. That runs counter to your narrative. How do you explain that, Tina? You can't, which is why you didn't. "When government takes money from its citizens and uses that money to prop up a company it is not an investment, it is an expense or it becomes debt which is future liability." This is just historically ignorant. The government has invested in companies since our country's inception. These investments have given us railroads, streets, planes, military achievment, scientific achievment, NASA, the Internet...the list goes on. As a society, we got more than we spent; that is called a good investment. It is ridiculous to say that government doesn't invest. In addition to these historical investments, I've told you how government has invested in me: because of my financial aid to college, I will be able to succeed and give back in the future. "That this government is spending on green energy almost exclusively should be your first clue that something unseemly is afoot" It is not exclusively. The Obama administration has also invested heavily in "clean coal:" http://www.google.com/search?
12/19
1/18/13
8
q=clean+coal+investments+obama&rlz=1C1TSNP_enUS487US487&oq=clean+coal+investments+obama&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF"it is simply a political ploy used to control the free market (socialism/fascism/corporatism) and pick who in the market will win and who will lose (totalitarian control)." Every administration much choose what to invest in. Romney has said he will not invest in solar energy, but in traditional fuel sources. As Jon Stewart rightly pointed out, that is also picking winners and losers.
Chris: "Many of the scientists cited by global warming deniers aren't even climate scientists" Many of your so-called 98% (You have no proof of this percentage) are medical doctors and economists: http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2009/12/04/mikefoxthe-ipcc-scandal-well-deserved-self-destruction-12042.aspx By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., One need not spend a working lifetime in science and engineering to appreciate the breath-taking scientific corruption now flooding from the fetid debris of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal at the University of East Anglia in England. The release of about 3000 pages of CRU emails and documents has exposed levels of scientific corruption which would make a Trofim Lysenko blush (http://tinyurl.com/dmo88). Others forms of CRU corruption are more sophisticated. We must also note that those highly advertised and un-named 2500 IPCC scientists who approved of the work done at the IPCC, went missing, did not properly do their review and oversight jobs, and were no where to be seen in these records. In fact we had earlier learned that even the 2500 IPCC scientists was just another IPCC hoax (http://tinyurl.com/pwexub). http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7553&page=1 For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by hockey-stick co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the US and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released. ... ...An examination of reviewers comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the Second Order Revision or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Heres the reality. A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented on more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but its a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything. An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that hundreds of IPCC scientists are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial. Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the Greenhouse gas forcing statement above, Professor McKitrick explained A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed. Dr Gray labeled the WG I statement as Typical IPCC doubletalk asserting The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model. Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense. The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who dont, says Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr Timothy Ball. Otherwise, their credibility, and the publics trust of science in general, will be
13/19
1/18/13
even further eroded.
That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely. Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.
"Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had masters degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes." In science when qualified scientists disagree as to a conclusion the theory has NOT been proven. this list of scientists agree with a conclusion that was arrived at fraudulently! For the sake of argument can we agree to throw out scientists in unrelated fields that signed on to the opposing opinions? If so, we will be left with reputable scientists that disagree...which means the jury is out. There is no consensus! Much of this movement has been political. The number of scientists from all over the world that are concerned for the integrity of the science community have made statements in opposition to the consensus opinion: http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5771986038/m/2301930238/inc/-1 Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committees office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears bite the dust. (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK) This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new consensus busters report is poised to redefine the debate. Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated. Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media, Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ] ... ...Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a consensus of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority. This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to flat Earth society members and similar in number to those who believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona. (LINK) & (LINK) The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2012/11/bush-had-a-plan-to-upgrad.html Technology; the UN IPCC; the
14/19
1/18/13
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London. The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often mediahyped consensus that the debate is settled. ... ...Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists: Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise! Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth. Even if the concentration of greenhouse gases double man would not perceive the temperature impact, Sorochtin wrote. Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried, Uriate wrote. Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number entirely without merit, Tennekes wrote. I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached." Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming, Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007. France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Universit Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. Day after day, the same mantra - that the Earth is warming up - is churned out in all its forms. As the ice melts and sea level rises, the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us! Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction. Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong, Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: The earth will not die. Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the
15/19
1/18/13
chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process. Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid, Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles. USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that real climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem. Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: The [IPCC] Summary for Policymakers might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so. South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africas Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming. Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warmingwith its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economyis based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation. Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions. China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be Excessively Exaggerated Scientists Lin Zhen-Shans and Sun Xians 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change. Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earths surface will therefore affect climate. Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institutes Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it. Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for
16/19
1/18/13
hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate. USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this. Wojick added: The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates. Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of hundreds or thousands of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking consensus LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCCs peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)
http://newmexico.watchdog.org/15128/mit-scientist-disputes-man-made-global-warming-in-sandialabs-presentation/ Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT spoke at the invitation of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico to offer his criticisms of the the theory that human activity is causing the planet to warm at a dangerous rate. Lindzen, the ninth speaker in Sandias Climate Change and National Security Speaker Series, is Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology in MITs department of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and is the lead author of Chapter 7 (Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks) of the International Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. [C]limate scientists have been locked into a simple-minded identification of climate with greenhouse-gas level. That climate should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades, Lindzen said, according to a press release from Sandia Labs. Real-world observations do not support Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models, he said: Weve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming. Responding to audience questions about rising temperatures, he said a 0.8 of a degree C change in temperature in 150 years is a small change. Questioned about five-, seven-, and 17-year averages that seem to show that Earths surface temperature is rising, he said temperatures are always fluctuating by tenths of a degree. Sandia stated that Lindzens views run counter to those of almost all major professional societies. For example, the American Physical Society statement of Nov. 18, 2007, read, The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. But he doesnt feel they are necessarily right. Why did the American Physical Society take a position? he asked his audience. Why did they find it compelling? They never answered. To a sympathetic questioner who said, You are like a voice crying in the wilderness. It must be hard to get published, Lindzen said, adding that billions of dollars go into funding climate studies. The reward for solving problems is that your funding gets cut. Its not a good incentive structure. Your success stories of clean energy spending can all be summed up in these suggested accomplishments: ...SunPower got a $1.2 billion loan guarantee to build the California Valley Solar Ranch Project, a 250-megawatt solar plant in San Luis Obispo County, Calif. And SunPower reported an operating loss of $534 million last year... ...its true that the price is lower than it has been in more than six years. The crude graphic in the ad seems to suggest the stock has dropped to $4 per share, but thats not accurate. It was trading at $13.40 on May 30, but that is still down precipitously from its high of $311.14 in May 2008. ...Its true that First Solar is cutting jobs, but most of them have been overseas... ...the company posted net losses of $22.5 million in 2011, and $16.4 million in 2010. But on a positive note, the company reported that the first quarter of 2012 was its first profitable quarter, with net income of $1.2 million. On a decidedly less positive note, the company confirmed that it has received subpoenas from the SEC as part of a fact-finding inquiry related to the trading of shares between Aug. 1, 2008, and Aug. 31, 2009. The Heritage Foundation obtained and posted a copy of the subpoena sent to the companys CEO. According to CBS News, the company is under investigation for insider trading. Obama said that his green energy program would create five million new green energy jobs but few have materialized and at great cost to the citizen taxpayer: www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2012/11/bush-had-a-plan-to-upgrad.html
17/19
1/18/13
have materialized and at great cost to the citizen taxpayer: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/03/05/Obamas-Energy-Plan-Costs-Rise-JobsDecline.aspx#page1 A new report from Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute details the harm done by the fanciful quest for clean energy at any price. Mr. Bryce has studied the impact of so-called renewable portfolio standards (RPS) the kind of directive that Mr. Obama wants to set for the entire nation -- on the 29 states that have adopted these required minimum mandates for green energy. He finds that forcing utilities to buy wind and solar energy drives up electricity costs and slows growth. Specifically, in the states adopting RPS, electricity costs were on average 32 percent higher than in states without such mandates. In coal-dependent states, the damage is even worse; in the past decade, those regions have suffered a 54 percent hike in electricity costs. ... ...Consider California, which naturally has the most ambitious program requiring utilities to derive fully one third of their power from renewables by 2020. Bryce reports that the California Public Utilities Commission estimated that the state would need to invest some $115 billion to adapt to the regulations or $3,100 for every resident of the state. California has already been hard-hit by the financial and housing crisis; unemployment is above the national average, the state faces gaping budget gaps and already suffers some of the highest electricity costs in the country. As utilities scramble to comply with the new directive, they are signing up green power at a 50 percent premium to natural gas. Imagine what these cost increases will mean for Californians. "These investments have given us railroads, streets, planes, military achievment, scientific achievment, NASA, the Internet...the list goes on." The people have spent to have these things. they were taxed! I didn't argue that all government spending has been wrongheaded. I argued that attempting to think of it as "investment" as if government had its own money is incredibly deceptive! It is particularly deceptive when it is pushed by an agenda driven president rather than passed in legislation by the people's representatives. "Every administration much choose what to invest in." Are you aware of what you are suggesting? That a president in America can spend the people's money according to his own beliefs and agenda? That is not how our system works and that is one reason, come next Tuesday, this president will be shown the door! "Romney has said he will not invest in solar energy, but in traditional fuel sources..." That is not true. the Romney policy includes all forms of energy production including solar: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy Mitt will promote innovation by focusing the federal government on the job it does best research and development and will eliminate any barriers that might prevent new energy technologies from succeeding on their own merits. Strengthening and streamlining regulations and permitting processes will benefit the development of both traditional and alternative energy sources, and encourage the use of a diverse range of fuels including natural gas in transportation. "As Jon Stewart rightly pointed out, that is also picking winners and losers." Wrong again. Mitt's plan takes government out of the mix to allow entrepreneurial effort a fair shot by removing obstacles to their success and development through private investment. (an example of a private sector rescue in your own examples: "SunPower sold the project to NRG Energy. So NRG is the owner of the loan guarantees and the company responsible for repaying them." A Fortune 300 company, NRG is at the forefront of changing how people think about and use energy. Whether as the largest solar power developer in the country, by building the nations first privately funded electric vehicle charging infrastructure or by giving customers the latest smart energy solutions to better manage their energy use, NRG is a pioneer in developing cleaner and smarter energy choices for our customers. Our diverse power generating facilities have a capacity of more than 25,000 megawatts, capable of supporting more than 20 million homes. Our retail electricity providers Reliant, Green Mountain Energy Company and Energy Plus and thermal energy division serve more than two million residential, business, commercial and industrial customers in 16 states. Who is NRG? a Fortune 300 company! http://www.nrgenergy.com/about/index.htm NRG has taken a leading role on climate change and the power sectors role in reducing greenhouse gases from the next wave of new power generation while meeting the countrys growing energy needs. NRG supports clean energy resources and technologies critical to our transition to a sustainable, low carbon society. See a list of their assets here: http://www.nrgenergy.com/about/assets.html This demonstrates that privately owned companies with experience in the industry are the best candidates to INVEST in alternative energy. They take the risk (and can afford it) and the taxpayer is better served both inn terms of alternative development and in terms of www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2012/11/bush-had-a-plan-to-upgrad.html the cost to them. Companies
18/19
1/18/13
better served both inn terms of alternative development and in terms of the cost to them. Companies have the incentive of profit which they will earn by delivering viable energy sources, both alternative and traditional, at the lowest possible price. In case you didn't learn this in college, Chris...its the American way and it has worked very well for a couple of hundred years! And that is the bottom line. I have nothing more to say on the subject.
Leave a comment
Sign in to comment, or comment anonymously. Name
Email Address
URL
Remember personal info? Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)
Type the two words:
Preview Submit
19/19

Post Scripts: Bush Had A Plan To Upgrade Eastern Power Grid - Dems & Greens Blocked It

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Post Scripts: Bush Had A Plan To Upgrade Eastern Power Grid - Dems & Greens Blocked It

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1/18/13

Friday, January 18, 2013 12:10:34 AM

Tina | November 1, 2012 12:51 PM | Reply

Categories More NorCalBlog Entries

Libby | November 1, 2012 3:11 PM | Reply

Subscribe to this blog's feed

About this Entry

Tina | November 1, 2012 11:02 PM | Reply

Chris | November 2, 2012 10:39 AM | Reply

R. Charan Pagan | November 2, 2012 11:37 AM | Reply

Tina | November 2, 2012 11:51 AM | Reply

Tina | November 2, 2012 11:54 AM | Reply

Chris I have to leave now but will reply later tonight.

Libby replied to comment from Tina | November 2, 2012 12:17 PM | Reply

Chris | November 2, 2012 12:34 PM | Reply

Tina | November 2, 2012 7:39 PM | Reply

Tina | November 2, 2012 8:54 PM | Reply

Chris | November 3, 2012 10:43 AM | Reply

Tina | November 3, 2012 9:47 PM | Reply

Chris | November 4, 2012 9:13 AM | Reply

Tina | November 4, 2012 12:11 PM | Reply

Type the two words:

Você também pode gostar