ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

wow, Lisa...what an opportunity!

a correction: the post you link to was not put up by me, but by Tyler. i had posted before that to simply announce that the film would be playing in Ventura, but Tyler was the first to review it.

which reminds me: are we going to revive the effort to get Ojai in on the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement? it's been through Mayors Hanstad and Bury already, according to Tyler, so perhaps third-mayor's a charm?

evan - as a new member of the Ojai Valley Green Coalition, I can tell you that efforts are being made to encourage Ojai's mayor to sign the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. I've been a vocal proponent of this since May, 2005.
http://www.ojaiblog.com/2005/05/lets_join_the_k.html
http://www.ojaiblog.com/2005/05/no_go_for_ojai_.html

Lisa - sounds like a great opportunity, and looking forward to reading future "Al and me" posts. :)

What is Radio Ojai?

Tyler,
most excellent! i expect that you'll let us all know when/what we can do as citizens-at-large to promote/support/encourage this effort?

...and WOW. your earlier efforts and posts received very little attention on the ojaiblog. i am very intrigued to notice the reasoning given for not supporting this effort: it's beyond our scope. EXACTLY the same reason given for not creating a resolution against the war. and yet at the same time we keep hearing "as Ojai goes, so goes the world", and even the reverse of that. methinks the city leadership needs to realize what so many of us already do: we are all connected, we are all in this together, and that just as goings-on in our world will affect us in one way or another, so does the voice of a City reach out and have meaning to those who hear it.

but it's also probable that they need our help. it's our city, and i empathize with our small-town City Council's lack of staff. so we citizens become that staff, and as long as City Hall can accept our voices/reports/drafts without feeling a usurpation of their authority or role, i think it appropriate that we help them help us.

Prediction:

The nominee for president the repugs will be Gov. Mike Huckabee and he will be beaten by the nominee for the Democrats.

Al Gore will be the nominee for the Dems., and he may even announce in front of 80 million people when wins the Oscar.

You heard it here first.

If everybody in Ojai replaced their incandecent light bulbs with LED's we could drastically reduce our power consumption ! Here is a link to some LED bulbs,
http://www.ccrane.com/lights/led-light-bulbs/index.aspx

scroll down to check out the power savings.

If we eliminated one coal burning plant we would comply with Kyoto.

Environmental Guru Lovelock Urges Expansion of Nuclear Energy

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,463367,00.html

Keep in mind that Al Gore is a politician and not a scientist. Some very prominate scientists do not agree with the recent UN paper, which, by the way, was mostly produce by persons politically motivated so they can seize control over energy money.

Here is one prominate scientist who is questioning the hysteria:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

That's a good prediction Sean. I hope that it comes to fruition as Gore has been deeply involved with the environmental movement since it's birth in the late 60s.

He's one of the few baby-boomers that didn't sell out, which may hurt him if he runs again like it hurt Nader in 2000. I believe that the baby boomers have a deep seeded guilt for selling out and leaving people like Gore behind, and so consequently that guilt manifests into anger. Anger makes for a divided vote.

Personally, I want the guy that wrote the book to be my president, not the guy who asks for the cliff notes.

Did Al Gore claim to be a scientist? No. Nor did he claim to invent the Internet.

Oh geez, Brian, I really have to call you out on this one. My god.

The U.N. panel of 2,500 scientists calls global warming "unequivocal" and that human activity being the MAIN driver is "very likely."

Your "prominate" scientist Tim Ball is head of an organization called the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (http://www.nsrp.com).

Among NSRP's goals: "NRSP’s first campaign is focused on dispelling the notion that Canada needs CO2 reduction plans. CO2 is very unlikely to be a substantial driver of climate change" and "Have a measurable impact on the public's understanding of climate change, with a target of significantly lessening support for implementation of CO2 controls."

Their strategy? "distinguishing legitimate concerns about climate change and pollution from unsupportable claims that humans are a significant contributor to climate change."

In addition to founding the NSRP, your author Tim Ball is a "scientific advisor" to The Friends of Science Society, which was revealed in an August 12, 2006 The Globe and Mail article to have received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry.

Furthermore, the other exective in the company, Tom Harris, is also a director with HPG as a "registered lobbyist for the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association."

The only shill you can trot out is neck-deep in big oil slush money.

Hi Tyler,
His credentials seem quite extensive to me. Have you seen the temperature in the northern states ?
http://wwwa.accuweather.com/news-top-headline.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0

Seems pretty cold to me !

All this nonsense about the possible rising sea levels I think are scare tactics by the alarmists so their buddies can get money from the government. I think we are going back into a cooling trend. Out of those 2,500 "scientists" most are buracrates, there are only a few bonafide real climate specialists amoung them.

But even if it is true, and CO2 is a factor in the earth warming, they are not really tackling the burning of coal, which I have mentioned at nausium in past posts.

Hi Brian - his credentials show he is a very well-educated scientist who is in the pocket of the energy industry.

And guess what, the sea levels are rising. In December 2006, the first island claimed by rising sea levels caused by global warming was Lohachara Island in the Sundarbans in Bay of Bengal. Lohachara was home to 10,000 people.

Other catastrophic effects of global warming include increased evaporation, more extreme weather, destabilization of local climates, ocean acidification, shutdown of thermohaline circulation, glacier retreat, methane release from melting permafrost peat bogs, methane release from hydrates, carbon cycle feedbacks, forest fires and retreat of sea ice, among other symptoms.

Regarding your observation, "I think we are going back into a cooling trend." - well, you got me there, I guess global warming CAN'T be occurring, because Brian, who dismisses Al Gore for not being a scientist, posits his own non-scientific opinion that is in direct contrast with, among others, 2,500 scientists.

Regarding tackling CO2 as a factor - you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are quoting a scientist who founded an organization that is specifically trying to undermine Kyoto and other environmental programs. If scientists can't get everyone to agree that there is consensus on global warming, because the oil industry is surreptitiously funding the manufacturing of a "debate", of course we won't make progress, because cycles are being spent to counter-act big oil propaganda instead of focusing all our energy on the solution.

And finally, to tie it in to another thread where you are afraid of generic "Islamic Terrorists", you accuse environmentalists of using "scare tactics by the alarmists so their buddies can get money from the government." What do you think the military-industrial complex is all about??? Do you not see record profits for Exxon, Halliburton, GE as a direct result of the fear of terrorism that has been unleashed on this country???

Oh, and here's news today from TheStreet.com:
http://articles.news.aol.com/business/_a/cheneys-fund-manager-attacks--cheney/20070205135409990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Dick Cheney's INVESTMENT MANAGER today sent out a four-page open letter hammering the current administration and past ones:
"Successive U.S. administrations have taken little interest in either oil substitution or climate change," he writes, "and the current one has even seemed to have a vested interest in the idea that the science of climate change is uncertain."

Yet "there is now nearly universal scientific agreement that fossil fuel use is causing a rise in global temperatures," he writes. "The U.S. is the only country in which environmental data is steadily attacked in a well-funded campaign of disinformation (funded mainly by one large oil company [Exxon-Mobil])."

As for Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, who appears everywhere to question global warming, Grantham mocks him as "the solitary plausible academic [the skeptics] can dig up, out of hundreds working in the field."

And for those nonscientists who are still undecided about the issue, Grantham reminds them of an old logical principle known as Pascal's Paradox. It may be better known as the "what if we're wrong?" argument. If we act to stop global warming and we're wrong, well, we could waste some money. If we don't act, and we're wrong ... you get the picture.

As for the alleged economic costs of going "green," Grantham says that industrialized countries with better fuel efficiency have, on average, enjoyed faster economic growth over the past 50 years than the U.S.

This is from Jeremy Grantham, the chairman of Boston-based fund management company Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo, and Dick Cheney's INVESTMENT MANAGER. Hello, Brian?

Brian,

Tyler's argument is sound and yours is melting like a Nepali glacier.

Not that opposition isn't important, but just make sure you cover all your points, otherwise you invite a rebuttal and one that often fills all the holes you left behind.

Man, give you guys some rope and you'll hang yourself everytime ! Those islands are in a delta system near India, they are constantly are appearing and disappearing and it has nothing what so ever to do with rising sea levels. Another scare tactic by the alarmists. If those islands dissapeared because of sea level rise then how come it is not evident anywhere eles? Even if the polar ice caps do retreat it will not cause any sea level rise.

What happened to last hurricane season? I thought that was suppose to be the worst, it turned out to be a dud.

There is clearly no consensus, I think we can at least have a consensus on that. I can list thousands of scientists who disagree. This whole hype on globle warming is like y2k. Co2 is not even the number one factor regulating earth temperature.

The truth is the earth has been warming ever since the last ice age, if it had not been warming we would be under 10 feet of ice right now. North America was at one time covered with ice. In conditions like that it's very hard to grow stuff, as we witnessed by the recent freeze which cost California growers billions of dollars.

attack of the radioactive beekeeper

Hi Brian - regarding the islands, in December 2006, scientists at Calcutta’s Jadavpur University concluded that they were submerged due to global warming, much earlier than predicted.
http://www.forward.com/articles/the-tide-is-turning/

Days later after the Calcutta study was released, China released its very first official report on global warming. The conclusion: Climate change threatens China’s very economic future. "Greenhouse gases released due to human activity are leading to ever more serious problems in terms of climate change," said the report, prepared by China’s Ministry of Science and Technology in cooperation with 12 other ministries. Droughts, flooding and heat waves will threaten bridges and rail lines, destroy farm land and reduce grain production by as much as 10% by midcentury. "Global climate change has an impact on the nation’s ability to develop further," the ministry said.

You cannot list thousands of scientists that disagree - I call BS on that. And there is no consensus that there is "no consensus". The whole "debate" has been manufactured largely by Exxon-Mobil. Did you read the above quote from Dick Cheney's Investment Manager, or did you accidentally skip over it?

Regarding the earth warming - it is proven beyond a doubt that we are warming at rates that far exceed any regular fluctuation over millions of years, regardless of whether the cause is mankind or nature.

And perhaps you can comment on Grantham's invocation of the Pascal Paradox: "And for those nonscientists who are still undecided about the issue, Grantham reminds them of an old logical principle known as Pascal's Paradox. It may be better known as the "what if we're wrong?" argument. If we act to stop global warming and we're wrong, well, we could waste some money. If we don't act, and we're wrong ... you get the picture."

In other words, what if you're wrong?

Well I'm glad to hear you say, at least, wheather the "cause is mankind or nature" the planet is warming, on that we can agree.

I'm suprized to hear that China would release a report on global warming, they are a major coal burning country. They have a lot of coal reserves and are building more coal burning plants. They have coal mines that are actually burning out of control 24/7 and they don't want to put any effort or money into extinguishing the fires.

The obvious and most emediate answer for reducing CO2 emmisions is to begin to shut down the coal burning plants. Why don't we do this before we start taxing the working people of this country who are trying to raise their kids and put them thru school?

We are also really blowing it with our natural gas consumption. At present we are using it for electric power production, like the plants down it Oxnard. If we were smart we would be using natural gas for our cars since it's the cleanest of the fossil fuels. Power our cities with nuclear. At present Diablo Canyon supplies 25% of Northern California, and LA gets it's power from a nuclear plant in Arizona and San Onofre.

We we keep doing what we are doing now gasoline prices are going to be at $5.00 a gallon in a few years.

Gas is $5.00 a gallon, if not more, in most other parts of the world. We are the only a-holes who think we can pollute the earth for free. Brian, you are so wrong on this issue it's scary.

Dear Ms. Snider:

A friend just called me over to observe Evan's excitingly graphic pregnancy news (and Evan, honey, running around getting popsicles does not make you and your beloved equals, or even both "pregnant," although I am sure your heart is in the right place). Back to you, Ms. Snider: we then scrolled down and read your reference to Groundhog Day, which you said was inspired by a "reader's" comment about your "award winning story" you had posted, but in reality your reference to Groundhog Day was to appear self-deprecating while you gushed and engaged in your red carpet bragfest. None of this I care about, and if blows your skirt up to gab about yourself online, knock yourself out. However, I am still wondering why you emailed me on New Year's Day, on my personal email that I have never provided to you, and accused me of being that "reader." When I had no idea what you were talking about, I checked the blog and found an anonymous reference to Groundhog Day in response to your "award winning story." I guess what I'm really wondering is: are you accumulating some sort of list of people you perceive as enemies, or by whom you feel threatened, and then mass email us when you feel you've been challenged? Or was I the only one graced with your internet snit? And by the way, before I looked at the blog and still had no idea what you were talking about, I invited you to send me that "award winning story" and I would try and make time to read it and give you my comments. You never did so, so I guess you weren't really interested in them anyway.

But hey, I wish I had been the anonymous poster, because it turned out he or she was prophetic: readers of the blog actually were subjected to your version of "How I Spent Groundhog Day," leading me to speculate: are we next going to hear juicy details about your Valentine's Day?

Cathy Elliott Jones

PS: For Valentine's Day, you might want to learn to spell "decipher." Correct spelling could lead you to another "award winning story!"

CJ

"if [it] blows your skirt up to gab about yourself online, knock yourself out"

Hey, good to hear from ya, Cathy honey, thanks for participating, and good to see you are practicing what you preach. I liked Lisa's story.

Cheers,
Tyler

hey Cathy,
i love the term "excitingly graphic"! and thanks...i think. i assure you that my heart IS in the right place, although i will continue to strive for equality and shared pregnancy as much as that makes any sense. i dont like being penalized for something i cannot do.

at any rate, it suddenly came to mind to think of you like a sour-coated gummy worm: i know there's some sweet stuff in there somewhere, but have to grimace through the acidic powder first.

Anybody wanna talk about global warming?

Hey Anonymous,

When I moved into my house we had a house warming party. Is global warming a party on a global scale? If so... count me in! I've always wanted to do a keg stand with a Kenyan.

If anyone is interested, there are two free global warming lectures coming up at UCSB. One is on March 8th at 8pm at the Corwin Pavillion. Steve Koonin will be speaking about "Engery Trends and Technologies for the Coming Decades." I'll be going to that one, so if your interested, let me know and we can set up a car pool. The other lecture is in April with Elizabeth Kolbert at the Campbell Hall. This lecture is entitled, "Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change."
If you'd like to learn more, visit www.globalwarmingsb.org. Both of these speakers are very educated in the field.

great info, Brian!

the group that's been so active in Ventura putting together town hall forums on climate change is calling itself VCCool, and they're having a Planet-Projects Potluck on Sunday February 11th from 3-5pm at the Bell Arts Factory (432 N. Ventura Ave, Ventura).

there'll be food, live music, and volunteering opportunities for global-warming-busting projects! it's a potluck, so if your last name starts with a-j, bring a salad. k-r brings a hot dish, and s-z brings whatever you want. it's also BYODishes, to avoid waste.

for more info go to their website, call 648-1267 or 642-7933, or email them.

Cool video on the radioactive beekeeper ! Did you produce that Mike? A bit violent though. Reminds me of some of those bugs bunny cartoons where the bees take the shape of an airplane or a big arrow or something. Unfortunately it tends to re-enforce peoples unreasonable fears of bees. Honeybees, when they are foraging, are so busy doing their thing they could care less about you. But if you start messing with their hive that's when they will be come defensive.

The general public is so uneducated in regards to degrees of radiation it's appalling. Forinstance, in Denver cosmic radiation and minerals in the ground measure from 100 to 500 millirems and the rate of bone cancer and leukemia is lower than both New Orleans and San Francisco, where radiation from these sources averages only about 75 millirems. Denver has the highest background radiation due to it's elevation. People who live in brick houses receive 1,500 times more radiation from the bricks and mortar than they would if they worked at a nuclear power plant.

In Living Color

Ms. Pelosi added that even though she had once opposed using nuclear power to supply some energy needs, she now believed that it should be “on the table,” if the disposal of radioactive waste could be settled.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/washington/09warming.html?ei=5065&en=5bf424cab4920f00&ex=1171688400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Oh my God - I thought it was a comedy piece until I read all the tripe in the comments.

The real name of the movie should be " A Convenient Lie so I can Make Money Because Noone Will Vote Me into ANY Office Anywhere Since I Made Such a Complete Ass Out of Myself"

Anyone who is "thrilled" to talk to Gore....my, my, you need to get out more.

How exactly did he make an 'ass out of' himself?

He is not only an ass but a fraud as well. Course he's a rich one so I know why you worship him. Go here:
http://wizbangblog.com/2007/02/26/al-gores-own-inconvenient-truth.php

It's also reported in all the MSM, including the Wall Street Journal.

Most "scientific" experts call his movie a Mockumentary because it's based on nothing but fearmongering twaddle.

Should we treat Earth better? Should we be "greener"? Of course. But to think we as humans could bring about momumental change in millions of years of cyclic weather patterns is just a bit egotistical.

This is all about money - for Al.
Try to read a bit more from all sides of a debate.

More About Fat Al:

Al's house:

"Gore's mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).... The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh -- more than 20 times the national average... Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year.... Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year." (Tennessee Center for Policy Research)

George's house:

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude. Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize. A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example.... This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford." (Common Dreams)

I'm not a big fan of W but I like his architect.

I like his architect, too, I just don't like his environmental policies!