The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Friday, August 18, 2006


Reuters yesterday printed an article titled, "California on the Brink of Global Warming Breakthrough." The California legislature is hashing out the most aggressive global warming policy to date in the U.S., a policy that would put a very high cap on greenhouse gas emissions. The legislature believes they will be able to come up with something that the governor will feel comfortable signing into law, and Schwarzenegger is confidently optimistic as well. Schwarzenegger's position is, of course, being emphasized as putting him squarely in opposition to Bush on this issue. (The media loves that.)

I have a prediction: This legislation, touted as a BREAKTHROUGH in global warming, will not be effective in reducing the global temperature by even one degree.


  • At 10:40 AM, Anonymous ghassa karam said…

    No single measure by any one state is of itself capable of affecting appreciably the stock of gloabl GHG. But what is important is that once a state adopts such measures this could lead to another and another and another... It is hoped that it will be act as a "demonstration effect".

    Do not dismiss the power of such effects. One of the best examples that comes to mind is the issue of national savings. The savings of each household would never be felt at the macrolevel but once the savings of the 150 million households are aggregated then the effect on the course of the economy becomes impossible to dismiss.

  • At 10:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    And any discussion of global warming must also include the discussion of global dimming.

  • At 9:13 PM, Blogger Return to Westernesse said…


    Yes, any dicussion of global warming should include a discussion of global dimming. Definition: The worldwide phenomenon of many millions of people being hoodwinked by scientists, environmentalists, and politicians claiming that man is responsible for global warming.

  • At 10:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hey R2W, you tried to make a joke. You didn't succeed, but that's not surprising.

    What's really funny though is how people like yourself will continue to stick your head in the sand while a tsunami of peer-reviewed scientific research makes you and your flat-earth mentality the laughing stock of reasoned debate.

  • At 10:16 PM, Blogger Return to Westernesse said…

    Hey, anonymous,

    I'll bet the majority of people who read my attempt at humor and don't take themselves as seriously as you, at least cracked a smile. You'll have to forgive me for not taking your word for it that I failed at making a joke.

  • At 5:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'm glad that comedy is appealing to you. Why not hit the road with Ann Coulter and her jokes about poisoning Supreme Court justices and murdering members of Congress. That's some real rib tickling material. Your schtick about dismissing global warming coupled with your Democrats and Ahmadinejad routine will no doubt be a hit on the 700 Club circuit.

  • At 10:31 PM, Blogger Return to Westernesse said…


    So my jokes about global dimming and Ahmadinejad, in which I made no reference to murdering anyone, or even hurting them, is on par with Ann Coulter's? Maybe it's time you lighten up.

  • At 9:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Yes. Let's review.

    You "joke" and link Democrats with a Middle Eastern sociopath whose recklessness could lead to the deaths of many thousands of people and global instability.

    You "joke" and dismiss proven science that reasonably predicts a really bad time for your grandchildren if we don't wise up.

    I concede that your global dimming comment could have easily been on Saturday Night Live and gotten a laugh. But at that point it would be irony, coming from people who aren't in the flat-earth crowd, poking fun at those deluded souls who can't put two and two together and realize that 6 billion people cranking out pollution isn't an indefinite possibility without consequences. Unlike this blog, they're not trying to peddle the junk science idea professed by a handful of quacks saying that global warming doesn't exist. Making that "joke" here is like Goebbels joking about the lack of books about the Holocaust published by German Jews in 1946.

    People make "jokes" all the time about people in wheelchairs and amputees too, but do they do that about kids coming back from Iraq with no legs? Why not? Because they can't "lighten up?"

  • At 9:59 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Is this a new anonymous, or te anonymous turned patiot turned back to anonymous.

    Either way, I for one will no longer waste time responding to one who does not take some kind of consistent label. One who cannot see the value in that has nothing valuable to say or respond to.

  • At 1:52 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    In my haste to post I've gone and rankled the lad and now he's running away from hard-hitting debate of real ideas. His excuse is that any idea that is not put forward by a consistent alias has no value. There's some sound logic for ya.

    Aside from expecting that you will use endless excuses to entirely avoid addressing the points in the last post, let me offer one other reason that your tantrum about having people post under consistent names is largely irrelevant. It is a well documented practice that other users usurp other users name.

  • At 3:44 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…


    again a sure sign you liberals cannot comprehend the important details. You mix standing on principle with running away. I insist that you tag your comments and you complain.

    As for your last point, when somebody comments as patriot and it is not you, please let me know and I will make a note of it. See how simple these things work?

    Anyway you said earlier:
    You "joke" and dismiss proven science that reasonably predicts a really bad time for your grandchildren if we don't wise up.

    What "proven" science? There is no proof or even reasonable evidence that we face catastrophe in the future due to global warming. It is a socialist pipe dream.

  • At 10:43 AM, Anonymous patriot said…

    Once again you prove that you have zero respect for facts.

    What "proven" science? There is no proof or even reasonable evidence that we face catastrophe in the future due to global warming. It is a socialist pipe dream. -AICS

    Socialist pipe dream? Sounds more like you got the wacky stuff in your pipe and it's making you paranoid. For you to deny this so vehemently in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence is far from reasonable and puts your intelligence in question. Clinging so desperately to your belief does not make it true.

    For proof and real, factual information that is widely accepted by all reputable scientists across the globe:

    The Pew Center on Global Climate Change primer. Here is the roster of their Board of Directors. Hardly a bunch of socialists, liberals or quack scientists.

    National Academy of Sciences report on Climate Change Science.

    This Climate Change 2001report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has hundreds of scientists from around the world working on its reports, makes the reality of global warming quite clear.

    These are just a scant but reputable few, and are the collective work of hundreds of scientists and analysts from around the world.

    I am eager for you to provide ANY credible, peer-reveiwed reports that support your current denial of the reality of global warming.

  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…


    First, the burden of proof is on those who claim gloom and doom, not on me to prove it is not so. They have not done this. They may have a list of observations that they have interpreted to be this, but science as you know has been wrong many times. (Global Cooling?)

    As for scientific concensus, even if all major scientists were in a room raising their hands voting aye on believing this, that vote is not proof. It is opinion.

    However, you are incorrect on the concensus point. True there is concensus that the temperature of the earth has raise one degree last century and that it will likely rise more.

    There is not the concensus you claimed that we are headed for catastrophe if we do nothing. Or that anything we do could prevent a catastrophe even if they did believe it.

    Get a clue.

  • At 12:22 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    It only took AICS 12 minutes to review the scientific information from all those resources and post his unsupported reply dismissing them in their entirety. Either he's a quick reader or he chooses to remain in absolute ignorance, avoiding any contact with verifiable factual information. I'm told to get a clue while his narrative tries to dismiss the scientific process, years of research, thousands of hours of testing, re-testing and its peer-review system as nothing more than bunch of people in the room raising their hands to say aye. Brilliant.

    It'd be interesting to know what it is you'd consider to be a proven fact in this world since you obviously have zero respect for the work of scientists and researchers. To say that the scientists I've cited have not proven the existence of global warming and its root causes is to lie.

    As for the future, no one is a fortune teller. No one can say with absolute certainty what will happen in the future. Trying to dismiss scientific consensus in light of this fact is just desperation on your part AICS. Ignoring an observable and dramatic trend in climate change that if it continues would threaten life on this planet is just plain stupid. Here's an example you might be able to grasp since it fits your worldview:

    The White House sees information and a trend indicating that Iraq would support terrorist strikes against the US, so we invade Iraq and smash its state machinery in an attempt to thwart what is seen to be impending disaster.

    You're willing to support this kind of crystal ball gazing, but not the other. Why not?

    What is Global Cooling? It's in Capital Letters like it's supposed to mean something important. Got a reference for that tidbit?

    As was entirely expected, you just made a bunch of statements without citing one reference to support your state of self-delusion.

  • At 1:06 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    What is Global Cooling? It's in Capital Letters like it's supposed to mean something important. Got a reference for that tidbit?

    Wow. Either you are very ignorant or young enough for me to say "Look it up whippersnapper"

    As for the comment about my reading something in 12 minutes. No, I did not read it. Please don't be so amateur add a list of links for me to spend hours reading. Sure, add the links. Also add some quotes taht support your point. I have gone down that rabbit trail too many times to waste my valuable time on.

    "See this link to a 400 page document completely proves my point." No thanks.

  • At 2:20 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    Once again, you prove unwilling to provide ANY documentation of a Big Point you're trying to make, re, Global Cooling. I want to know what YOU are talking about and the point YOU are trying to make, not what I will supposedly find via Google or whatever other research method I use. For all I know I would get a rock band website or something some wingnut put together instead of some hard science to contend with.

    That's rich to be called an amateur by someone who can't even be bothered to provide the most minimal of citations for one item to support their position.

    But fine. I'll fill your blog here with quotes that support my point.

    PEW CENTER link:
    "The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming. This warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation. Continuation of historical trends of greenhouse gas emissions will result in additional warming over the 21st century, with current projections of a global increase of 2.5ºF to 10.4ºF by 2100, with warming in the U.S. expected to be even higher. This warming will have real consequences for the United States and the world, for with that warming will also come additional sea-level rise that will gradually inundate coastal areas, changes in precipitation patterns, increased risk of droughts and floods, threats to biodiversity, and a number of potential challenges for public health."

    "Almost all of the major greenhouse gases -- with the exception of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) -- have both natural and human-induced sources. For example, carbon dioxide is not only formed by the decay in plant matter [of which we have decreasing amounts every year], but also by the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. And atmospheric methane can be formed by growing rice, raising cattle, coal mining, using land-fills, and handling natural gas. Both carbon dioxide and methane are more abundant in the Earth's atmosphere now than at any time during the past 400,000 years"

    Maybe the following is your "global cooling" concept you are on about? From the same NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES link:

    "The report notes that the cooling trend in the Earth's stratosphere -- documented by satellite data since 1979 --- is so pronounced that it would be difficult to explain through natural variability alone. The cooling is believed to be partially a result of the buildup of greenhouse gases and the depletion of stratospheric ozone, which warms the atmosphere at low levels but cools it at high levels. The use of CFCs -- which were employed in a variety of industrial applications including refrigeration, air conditioning, and aerosols -- was banned in 1996 by the Montreal Protocol. This cooling could delay or perhaps temporarily reverse the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer, which was the intended goal of banning the use of CFCs."

    I don't think that will support your notion that everything is hunky dory as regards climate change and that humans have little or nothing to do with it, but let's see what hard science and experts you cite on this.

    "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

    Granted, I think all you are doing now is wasting my time. I predict you will parse and twist these few notations into an argument that will somehow "prove" your point rather than accept that you are flogging a lost cause because hard science and recorded factual information is not on your side on this one.

    Also still waiting to hear why you're willing to accept crystal ball gazing on one hand but not the other.

  • At 2:26 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    Seriously. We're talking about your descendents here too. Kids, grandkids. Legacy. Unless you're one of those Rapture/Armageddon people, I really do not understand your intransigence on this in the face of overwhelming scientific information and just plain common sense.

  • At 5:26 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    I wish I had more time to devote to this, but at the moment I don't.

    I did take a look through your links after you gave me a few snips to tell me it was worth taking a few minutes to do so. Thanks.

    Basically for Global Warming to be an issue with me, I would need proof to ALL FOUR that:

    1) Warming is occuring
    2) Warming is caused by GHCs
    3) Warming will occur fast enough to cause catastrophic weather changes that would endanger many lives
    4) Changes can be made to slow or stop any warming that would lead to catastrophe.

    I am convinced # 1 is true and that # 2 might be true. I am not convinced #3 and #4 have been proven or even come close to being proven.

    In those links I basically saw that the consensus you talk about mainly resides in points 1-2. 3-4 are still open to debate in the scientific community.

    The PEW link had this:

    Will the damages from severe weather become worse in the future?

    Given future trends in population growth and increasing development in coastal areas, we know that the damages caused by severe weather will increase regardless of global warming. Climate change will likely exacerbate the damage.

    This is but one examples that shows that points 3-4 are by no means proven or a consensus. To further the point, KYOTO is the best man has to offer to address this. Most countries that have signed on to it have not kept their commitments. If the US signed on, they would be one of the few that would keep it. This means our economy would take a major hit to support unproven science.

    I also note that most of the Global Warming stuff is based on global models. I suspect (opinion warning) that these models have a bias toward warming and preconceived notions. I had a great post on this quite awhile back (2-3 months) how they had a model for something on the ocean floor that went out the window when they actually did a core sample. After replacing the model with facts instead of perception it gave a totally different result.

    That is why I feel the way I do about Global Warming.

    P.S. My reference to Global Cooling was that several decades ago science told us we were headed toward catastrophy from Global Cooling. Then they came out and said, no, it was actually catastrophy from Global Warming. Your link was interesting but not what I was referring to.

    And look at all the studies that show that coffee is bad for us one day and great for us the next. (Same with eggs).

  • At 11:06 AM, Anonymous patriot said…

    AICS, your thoughtful response and associated questions are appreciated.

    As regards points 3 and 4, once again we are dealing in issues of trying to assess the future -- so far a technology that is built on best guesses, trends and models and most usually show a tendency towards being conservative. Ask any scientist who wants to retain any level of respectability in their field. Modern scientists of high calibre are not prone to wild speculations, but intent on publishing studies that are verifiable and based on solid scientific process.

    Still, point 3 doesn't have to assume that change will happen quickly to cause us to act preventively. Again, because (I believe) we should have concern for future generations, it behooves us to take corrective action when we have identified a problem that we can address.

    A heart attack is an apt metaphor. If your doctor tells you you have had a sharp increase in your cholesterol count and arterial occlusions, it is recommended that you begin a course of a better diet and exercise the moment you leave the doctor's office.

    Addressing the problem leads us to your point #4, and there are many many things that can be done, even on a personal level.

    The average American generates about 15,000 pounds of carbon dioxide every year from personal transportation, home energy use and from the energy used to produce all of the products and services we consume.

    Most emissions from homes are from the fossil fuels burned to generate electricity and heat. By using energy more efficiently at home, you can reduce your emissions and lower your energy bills by more than 30%. Compact Flourescent Lightbulbs use 60% less energy than a regular bulb. This simple switch will save about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. If every family in the U.S. made the switch, we’d reduce carbon dioxide by more than 90 billion pounds. Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summer. Almost half of the energy we use in our homes goes to heating and cooling. You could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple adjustment.

    These are just two very simple changes each one of us can make in our homes. These are just two ideas available from many resources like this. Don't be put off by the page header, the resources links are in the lower half of the page.

    Thanks for looking deeper into this issue. It'll make your kids and grandkids proud.

  • At 9:59 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…


    I am all for people being more environmentally friendly. I would love for us to find an alternative to fossil fuels for more reasons than one. I don't like seeing fumes belching from 18 wheelers and smokestacks. I want clean air and water. I think we should all be environmentally minded.

    I just don't think it is time yet to sell our economy down the river over unproven claims. We have seen that those that signed onto KYOTO have not kept it very well. I also think that there might be technology to counter the affects of greenhouse gases. It might even be cheaper than tanking the economies of the world.

  • At 10:27 AM, Anonymous patriot said…

    I just don't think it is time yet to sell our economy down the river over unproven claims. We have seen that those that signed onto KYOTO have not kept it very well. I also think that there might be technology to counter the affects of greenhouse gases. It might even be cheaper than tanking the economies of the world.

    SNAP OUT OF IT!!! After a moment of clarity you've tragically lapsed back into corporate brainwash mentality. You now have scads of scientific information available to you and you choose to ignore it for an unsubstantiated talking point. It's exasperating. Come back to the Light.......come back to thinking independently for more than a minute please.

    For Christ's sake, why do you people insist on equating environmental resposibility with tanking the economy? It's ludicrous and totally unproven, to borrow a phrase that seems hopelessly stuck in your craw. If there's ANY causal relationship between the economy and environmental responsibility, it is that economies are strengthened by environmental responsibility because at its core is the idea of sustainability and it spawns development of new technologies and practices instead of stagnating in Old World thinking. One BIG example is how the American automotive industry is getting creamed by Asia and Europe, who are leading the world in cleaner, more efficient new technology. Back in Detroit, Ford is closing plants and laying off thousands because they refuse to join the modern world. Instead of being a world leader in technology, America has fallen way behind.

    Besides which, why the hell would any so-called tree-hugger advocating environmental stability want to tank an economy and cause massive human suffering? Your fear of these people and their ideas is unfounded. If anything, environmentalists have been at the forefront of calling for a stimulation of reasearch and technology development, but corporate PR firms still peddle the story that it's all about forcing people to wear fig leaves and eat tree bark. I'm not asking you to dig through endless weblinks, just click on those two above and read the first page and some of the titles of the linked articles to get an accurate picture of what you think you're talking about. It's definitely not about trying to tank economies.

    Arguing Kyoto will get no traction with me. Kyoto is signed by all but 15 countries in the entire world. The US and Australia are the ONLY countries out of 164 who have signed it but have declined to ratify it. Having the world's largest producer of GHGs (the US at 25%, outstripping the EU at 15%, China at 14% and Australia at 1.5%) not participating is ONLY going to precipitate failure of the project. The premise is a fair idea and a good starting point, but as it currently exists the execution is terrible and suffers because of a lack of political will and leadership on the part of the industrialized nations. Demonizing Kyoto as if it's the ONLY solution is a non-starter.

    Polluters and their PR firms succeed too often in convincing people like you to be skeptical of hard scientific evidence, and the media plays along, just like the cigarette companies duped the public for all those years. Today's polluter CEOs are saying that today's bottom line is more important than your kids' future and they're getting you to agree with them. It's all about short-term gain and has no vision. And here we sit, 30 years after the first real warnings on the environment were put out to the public, and we're still having the argument as to whether or not we should do something about it.

    You and I will likely not see much dire effects of global warming in our lifetimes, unless you consider how these last few summers have been scorching the globe and their associated heat-wave death tolls. You can brush that off as only a handful of elderly and a few million drought-plagued Africans facing starvation, but you can't deny that every TV and radio has been going on and on about the big heat waves across the US every summer for the last decade, and how year after year we're getting green Christmases.

    It costs me more money to eat good steaks and vegetables than if I were to do the Burger King diet every day, but the way I see it, the cost benefit analysis works in my favor. I'm healthier, feel better, have supported a more stable economic model (supporting small business over corporate faceless automation) and supported a more sustainable natural environment for my kids. This argument could go on and on with endless examples so I'm not sure why I bother. You seem set in your ways, happy to buy the lie and just leave it to your kids to deal with.

    Perhaps you don't realize it, but every time you argue against the realities of global warming, global dimming and their already documented and potential future consequences, you are passing it off to your kids and their kids on down the line. I'm not suggesting you should become a big enviro-advocate, but using your blog to propogate an irresponsible mindset around this issue - now that you have some hard science to consult right at your fingertips - defies your namesake of Logic.

    You may respond as you often do that you don't have time to read this or that or to follow up on things that don't interest you, but your frequent posting on this issue indicates you make time for it and have an interest in it. I've given you resources to truly educate yourself about it, so it will be your choice to do that or to just keep parroting soundbites and unfounded talking points.

  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…


    I will continue to read the material you sent as I have time. I have not had much time lately to even write one post per day. As always, I am a seeker of the truth and will seriously try to read your links.

    I think it is a moot point what the US does anyway. China is the rising economic power and I seriously doubt they will be mindful enough of their emmissions to satisfy environmentalists. For every cubic foot the US would reduce, China will add.

    As I said, I think removing the gases through technology is the way to go. If through technology we could do that would you be satisfied? Has anyone ever even looked into this? I read a recent story about the possiblity of shoving it under the ocean mud where it would be trapped for centuries.

    As for your assurances that environmentalists are not out to tank our economy, I don't think all or even most are. In my opinion some do, however.

  • At 10:48 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…


    A few more additions. First, I looked carefully at your links on the technology and found no objections to anything I saw. Building technology to address environmental concerns is exactly on track with my thinking. In these cases reducing GHCs and pollution up front is the best place to start. But where it is not economically feasible to universally retrofit what is existing in the near term should not be thrust upon corporations not financially able to do so.

    As a follow up on environmentalists and tanking the economy i have two points:

    First, there are always groups (radical or just plain power hungry opportunists) ready to hijack any political movement. There are such elements out there who hate everything America stands for and would love to use the gloom and doom fears generated by the global warming rhetoric to target the US economy. My first reaction is to build a solid wall of protection from that sort of attack (subtle or direct).

    Second, the radical elements of environmental groups really cloud the public discussion making serious, calm headed debate nearly impossible. While I do not think we are headed for global warming catastrophe, I think we will suffer because more pollution reduction could not be addressed in a sane manner. The NO-NUKE crowd of the '80s are a perfect example of that. Only now are people beginning to realize the emmission reduction opportunities lost by all those senseless protests. It was all about hating Ronald Reagan and now it is all about hating GWB. (I don't say that as an inflammatory jab, but merely as fact)

    I also think we should by now be well on our way to being off of fossil fuels. I would love to tell Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC as well as that crazy Venezuelan loon to go pound sand.

    The hysteria has truly harmed us. I admit some of it has come from the conservative side as well.

    Thanks for your persistence on this topic. It has inspired me to further research and I do hope to be a level-headed voice on this topic. The problem is you will likely only like about 50% of what I will say on it.

  • At 6:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Good day, sun shines!
    There have been times of troubles when I felt unhappy missing knowledge about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright stupid person.
    I have never thought that there weren't any need in big starting capital.
    Nowadays, I feel good, I started to get real money.
    It gets down to choose a proper companion who utilizes your funds in a right way - that is incorporate it in real business, and shares the profit with me.

    You can get interested, if there are such firms? I'm obliged to tell the truth, YES, there are. Please get to know about one of them: [url=]Online Investment Blog[/url]


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home