The Hammond Report

«God Forbid» we should lead by example rather than push from behind with the point of a bayonet.

Yes, the «probable» leader of my country is concerned about how other countries see us, «outrageous».

Keep telling yourself that 'junk science' line if it makes you feel better Andy; some of us want to live in reality.

Your theory would be fine, because the climate does encounter cyclic shifts, except that the rise in the amount of CO2 as marked by the industrial revolution exceeds, by an order of magnitude, anything previously found.

How does your great 'natural' argument account for that?

I would also ask Andy, another serious question.

Why is it 'outrageous' that another country be concerned with what we do in the confines of our country, and yet it is not outrageous when Americans are concerned about what others do in the confines of their own countries?

Such as build nuclear power plants, institute child labor, etc.

How is it any different?

Didn't Jimmy Carter say something like that? Lowering the thermostat and wearing more sweaters?

Andy,
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the more recent scientific experimentation done on climate was done in 1908; a hundred years ago. Certainly things have changed...

Do you really think these opinions are based on such outdated data? Is it possible that you don't realize experimentation on this kind of stuff is done in our world daily?

And Andy, I already admitted that I agree we see localized climate cooling as part of a great cyclic process, however the introduction of man made variables has affected the system on a macro level, micro changes will of course continue. We have to look at trends, and the trends point to an upward movement in temperature.

Colby, just a quick question. I'm curious as to the climate model you are using.

I am assuming that you are referencing a basic model consisting of an n x n matrix of relationships. What is the value of n that is used in the model? Does the model make any assumptions? If so, what are those assumptions? If it does not make any assumptions, where did you find the processor capable of such computation?

I have found that most folks that buy into the man-made global warming hoax get confused and angry when asked to present basic information about their theory. What I am asking for is VERY VERY VERY basic in reference to model theory.

Perhaps a link to an explanation of the model would help. Hopefully, you understand the difference between model theory and a graph.

I don't have such information, and you well know it. I, like most rationale people, trust expert consensus instead of trying to forge new ground myself. If we all insisted on being subject-matter experts before 'taking a side', we would never get anything done.

However, if Andy is going to argue against global warming despite the scientific consensus (which no, is not 99.99%) with little to no scientific evidence, I do not see how you can condemn an opponent of his for doing the same.

However, I am neither confused nor angry by your request; I merely think wanting anyone with an opinion to be able to argue on the level of the experts of said opinion is patently unreasonable.

No kidding... I know that.

My question is why. Nice attempt at pigeon-holing me, btw.
A. American thinks Iran's nuclear power will harm them.
B. America doesn't want to be harmed.
c. America wants to stop Iran's nuclear power.

A. Britan thinks America's carbon output will harm them.
B. Brian doesn't want to be harmed.
C. Britan wants to lower America's carbon output.

You can argue the eminence of harm here, and certainly nuclear weapons harm much quicker than global warming, but the fact remains that people don't agree. I don't think Iran is planning to attack anyone, but I respect the fact that many people feel differently. Why is it so different to ask that level of respect from you?

So, Colby, when did you get your GED?

Wow, what a truly innovative insult.

You must be so proud of yourself!

Colby,

This isn't brain surgery.

Claiming scientific consensus on this matter is irrational, especially when faced with growing members of the scientific community that are shouting in opposition.

If you can't link me up with a climate model that you can understand, perhaps you could link me up with a model that one of your concensus scientists understands. I'd love to get a look at it. I have a couple of peers of my own that understand operations research and non-linear programming enough to challenge my thinking.

As you understand, getting the models is the hard part. Perhaps they should make them open source, what do you think of that idea? We could build an open source community to improve the model and come to some sort of agreement.

My other idea is to just buy into the hoax. I have been thinking about building a highly polluting coal burning short stacked oil dependent energy generation facility upwind of Yellowstone Park. It is well into the pre-planning stage. I figure about $2 Billion will convince me not to build it. I just love the carbon credit industry.

Andy,

Mark Levin added to the conversation today on his radio program.

A fan website even adds a little local flavor. Mark Levin Fan

Oh butters!

Hey, if you want to drive an SUV, please by all means. just don't be one of the people at the gas line complaining because you're paying upwards of more than two hundred dollars to fill up twice a week (depending on which model you think you have).

Ther

Like big houses, there are some people who can't afford to own SUVs. At $4 per gallon gasoline, some of them will realize that. At $8 per gallon, many more will realize that. But even at $100 per gallon people like me will still be driving an SUV because I'll write the cost off as a business expense.

What most of you spiteful little enviro-weenies don't understand, when you gleefully predict astronomical energy prices, is that the income differentials among the poor, the working class, the middle class, and the wealthy are essentially fixed. If energy prices went up a thousand percent, the well-off might be walking, but you would've already frozen to death last winter.

Well Bozeman, realize that the «gleeful predictions» as you so put it, are what is happening now, and not what is going to happen.

Also, consider this. in order for us to eat, there as to be farms and ranches. In this modern age, it requires a lot of machinery to operate from the time of planting all the way up to harvest. Those machines need fuel in order to work. Then there's the cost of transporting the harvested goods to places where they'll be turned into items for the store shelves- which also require fuel. Then there's the manufacturing of items, such as plastic wrappers- made from petroleum. Then there's the cost of trucking such items to a distribution center, then on to your local grocery store.

«just don't be one of the people at the gas line complaining because you're paying upwards of more than two hundred dollars to fill up twice a week »

Sounds like a gleeful prediction to me. If not, then let's see your math...

OK, take a Hummer that gets 8 MPG with a 50 gallon tank. The price to fill uip at the gas station down the street is $3.95

50x$3.95=197.50 (taxes not included)

I would think that folks like a. citizen would be happy about the high prices of fuel. Isn't that what they have been striving for years to achieve? Restricting drilling, restricting pipelines, restricting refining, multiple blends of fuel. High prices have been a goal, why aren't they standing up and taking credit for their monkey wrenching? After all of these years, the environmental marxists are finally achieving their goals.

I would think you'd want to stand up and take a bow. Congratulations.

Until you let us drill and refine, I'll bitch all I want.

I am not happy about it, as the other reasons I have posted. But hey, feel free to pretend that you know me, and my views.

So does this mean you'll encourage more drilling and refining?

In the long term (meaning more than 15 years) what good will it do?

In the long term (meaning 10 years ago) if drilling in Anwar had been allowed the oil would be at the pumps today.

A. Citizen: It seems everything you say is grossly exaggerated or flat-out wrong.

2008 Hummer H3
Fuel Tank Capacity = 23 gals.
EPA Highway Mileage = 18 MPG
Average Montana Gasoline Price = $3.697 per gal. (Taxes included)

1 Fill Up = 23 X $3.697 = $85.03

You said, «more than two hundred dollars to fill up twice a week.»
Let's see:
2 X 1 Fill Up @ $85.03 ea. = $170.06
Not exactly «more than two hundred dollars.»

Now, tell us who drives 828 miles per week or over 43,000 miles per year.

[Sources: Edmond.com and Montanagasprices.com]

Bozeman....
That would be all fine and dandy, if that was the hummer model I was speak of, but it's not. And 18 gallons, while an improvement over the earlier models is still terrible, and still costs a pretty penny to keep filled.

Who drives that much? Depends on where you live and what you do. If you live in a metropolitan area such as Dallas, Los Angeles, or Seattle, you'll be driving quite a bit. Same if you live in a rural area, or operate a farm or ranch.

jlw3mt
Talking about what could have been is irrelevant. Long-term solutions is what should be looked at.

And just FYI, it would be a lot longer than 10 years. First you have to find it, then you have to get it out, then you have to transport it. Not something that is done overnight.

Somthing that could be considered- Yellowstone has lots of geothermic activity. There's at least enough there to generate a lot for several power stations.

Maxine Waters (Moonbat-CA) yesterday proposed nationalization of the oil industry.

Hot Air Link

I keep forgetting why Democrats object to be called Marxists.

a. citizen

So you don't want to drill for oil because it will take too long? How much longer will it take if we delay another 10 years? It is not irrelevant just because you want it to be irrelevant. Short term solutions will supply this country with energy till long term solutions are enabled,... like nuclear energy.

Ignoring the past mistakes of not drilling for oil will lead us to further mistakes of not drilling for oil.

Good luck with your geothermal. Drilling in Yellowstone, upsetting the bison, destroying the environment, running power lines across the state, ruining a national park. I'm sure Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will block that idea.

I wonder which would take longer, drilling for oil or trying to drill in Yellowstone?

jlw3mt
Let me put it this way
Let's say the refuge is opened up tomorrow.
1. How much is the exploratory cost?
2. How much to fly in the equipment after a site is deemed probable?
4. If a site cannot yield, how much to dismantle and restore?
3. if the site yields, how much to build a pipeline to a central pumping station?
4. How much for the central station to Valdez?
5 How much oil is expected to be produced, and for how long?
6. How much will this offset the current and/or projected dependence on foreign oil?

And if you really want to have some fun, consider this: one does not even have to go into Yellowstone to set up the power plants. And as long as the super volcano doesn't wake up, there's potential power there for a lot longer than any form of limited form of petroleum can.

And drilling would be quite minimal, and the output would be far longer. As a matter of fact, there are several in existence in these United States right now. do a search for «The Geysers»

For Nuclear, it's an option, as long as the waste can be safely and sanely be disposed of.

Just one option of several that need to be looked at and developed further.

Costs are irrelevant. They are paid by the oil company which than adds costs to the product. That is why gasoline costs so much. All of the costs to produce the final product. If it costs too much than the oil companies won't develope the site. That is the free market capitalist way.

And if you are too worried about the costs there are lots of sites just off the coast that are much easier to get to and drill for oil.

Your idea is limited to a specific area. Electricity can only be transmitted so far before the resistance loss makes it unfeasible, i.e., electricity made in Yellowstone can not be transported to Florida. It could be used in WY and several surrounding states. Also how long would your source last before you would have to drill new holes? How many cities would have to be built around the new power generation sites and at what cost? How will they be dismantled when they fail? Your worry about costs is one-sided and shows a bias toward your goal.

Nuclear and oil can be used anywhere as they are easily transported to on site generation sites. Geothermal has limited transportation capabilities.

I also find it interesting that you consider drilling in Yellowstone 'minimal', wouldn't drilling in ANWR be 'minimal' also? Especially when it will be done in the winter when the ground is frozen. You can't say that about drilling in WY.

And finally, coal fired generation produces more radioactive pollution than nuclear and it is spread over a wider area.

I'm not saying that geothermal is not an option, I'm saying it is not the only option and that all possible sources be considered instead of limiting the USA to 'politically correct' sources. After all, my standards on politically correct may not be the same as yours or the person next door.

Now I'm going back to my story on global warming causing two new super huricanes on Jupiter. We need to talk to those Jovians about their SUV usage.

<>

And the price will continue to rise, effecting other aspects of our life. Food, clothing, etc.

The supply is also quite limited.

<>

Power generated in California by a nuclear plant is not transported to Florida. Neither is power generated by a coal plant in Montana. So that is a straw argument. In Florida, I would say solar, and wind generators.

<>

Take a loot at the existing plants both in the United States and around the world. How often do they?

<>

It's logical, plain and simple as that. After all, what do you think will happen in forty or so years, when it really runs out?

cardiac..

«I keep forgetting why Democrats object to be called Marxists.»

Probably for the same reasons neo-cons hate being called «brown-shirts»

You are being obtuse.

Oil, coal, and nuclear material can be transported to FL. That was in my earlier arguement. It is not a straw arguement. You are trying to obfiscate your losing arguement by implying that I am using propaganda.

Two Kennedys are against wind generation. So you are going to fill FL with wind generators and nobody is going to notice or object?

When the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine what will the Floridians do for power? Why they will have to go to their full sized generation facilities that use oil, coal or nuclear. So now you have two complete sets of generating facilities both maned. How cheap will that be?

What about a nice little hurricane in FL. How well will those thousands of acres of solar and wind generation facilities stand up to a hurricane? They would be without power most of the year while they rebuilt everything for the next year.

You can only supplement power generation in this country with geothermal solar and wind, you can not replace it.

Guess how many of what is in ANWR? Nobody is allowed to drill there.

Very little of the earth has been explored for oil. We will find more. We will also find replacements. Especially if we are allowed to drill. I find it extremely funny that our congress is blaming OPEC for a lack of oil while not allowing drilling in this country.

And finally, how are you going to make a shirt out of solar energy, plastic wrap out of geothermal? Only 9 gallons of gas come out of a barrel of oil. The rest is used to create plastic or pavement or most of the rest of the things we use everyday.

Whether you like it of not we will be using oil for a long time to come and geothermal, solar and wind will only play a minor role. Geothermal will play an even smaller role.

However we could use nuclear and reduce our oil use to conserve it while we develope alternatives. So will you join me in requesting our government build nuclear plants all over this country? It is the fastest and cheapest thing we can do to generate power for this country. After all most of the power generation in France is from nuclear. If they can do it don't you think we are capable of doing the same in the USA. Then you will have electricity to power your Segway and I will have gas for my SUV.

«Oil, coal, and nuclear material can be transported to FL. That was in my earlier arguement. It is not a straw arguement»

You said, «Your idea is limited to a specific area. Electricity can only be transmitted so far before the resistance loss makes it unfeasible, i.e., electricity made in Yellowstone can not be transported to Florida. It could be used in WY and several surrounding states»

So, trying to change what you said, when it's perfectly accessible doesn't quite work. You were referring to power and power dissipation, not the transportation of raw materials.

«Two Kennedys are against wind generation. So you are going to fill FL with wind generators and nobody is going to notice or object?»

Depends on where you put them, doesn't it? Which of the two object?

«When the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine what will the Floridians do for power? »

1. There is always wind- especially along the coastlines. Remember high pressure low pressure, and how they work?

2. What is the motto of Florida? Here's a hint: «The S*nsh*ne State» (would you like to buy a vowel?)

3. there are plenty of buildings (both commercial and residential) that not only generate enough power for their structures, but have a surplus that is sold to the power companies.

«Why they will have to go to their full sized generation facilities that use oil, coal or nuclear. »

Do you know what a capacitor is?

«What about a nice little hurricane in FL. How well will those thousands of acres of solar and wind generation facilities stand up to a hurricane?»

Probably as well as the power towers stand up to hurricanes that generate and deliver the power from the current power plants.

«They would be without power most of the year while they rebuilt everything for the next year.»

So, every year they have to rebuild the current power plants?

«You can only supplement power generation in this country with geothermal solar and wind, you can not replace it.»

Those are just two of several options. Two of several renewable and long lasting options. How much longer will fossil fuels last?

«Very little of the earth has been explored for oil. We will find more. Especially if we are allowed to drill. I find it extremely funny that our congress is blaming OPEC for a lack of oil while not allowing drilling in this country.»

That's because oil is found in very specific places, and is a finite resource. Ask any geologist. Better yet, hire one and have them check out your yard. you never know. You could be sitting on a fortune.

«And finally, how are you going to make a shirt out of solar energy, »

Well, considering that the majority of my clothes are made from cotton...

«plastic wrap out of geothermal?»

I try not to use plastic wrap whenever possible. That, or use the kind that is reusable more than once.

«Whether you like it of not we will be using oil for a long time to come»

Really? How long?

«However we could use nuclear and reduce our oil use to conserve it while we develope alternatives. So will you join me in requesting our government build nuclear plants all over this country?»

One question: Land is cheap around Hanford Washington. would you be willing to take up residence and live there for five to ten years? would you mind it a bit, if you live down-wind from a similar place, if it was built five or ten miles from your current residence?

But more so than that, let's say they are built. Where do you propose that the waste be stored?