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

Brian- better tune up that fiddle of yours.
You'll undoubtedly be playing it a lot while Rome and the rest of Mother Gaia starts groaning and creaking at her seams.

however i am not a "scientist".
i merely follow the money...

Here is the rainfall data for Ventura County
http://www.vcwatershed.org/fws/media.html
But what does this show? Our micro climate in Ojai does not show anything about world climate. It is only a little dot on the big picture. Also you can not look at single day or seasons. You have to look at the averages of the years and decades. This is to long of a time frame for us to feel the difference for a few degrees. Europe has the warmest winter for the last 100 years. Even some in this movie are saying that the climate is changing. Who cares if it is man made or not? The bigger question is: Does humans will survive a drastic change in climate? Can we prevent it? Should we work against it?

Brian - you've linked to "The Great Global Warming Scandal" before, and the petro-funded pseudo-science, from such "experts" as Tim Ball, has only gotten more dated. The film has been debunked point-by-point, repeatedly, on a scientific basis.

You can't argue meaningfully with people whose minds are made up.

There are gadflies who take great joy in telling you that everything you believe is wrong. They live on a diet of schadenfreude, and your discomfort is their sustenance.

When you fight them, you feed them, and you lose your own way.

Neid zu fühlen ist menschlich, Schadenfreude zu genießen teuflisch

"To feel envy is human, to savour schadenfreude is devilish." (Arthur Schopenhauer)

I don't remember linking to this before.
You can psycho analyze me all you want, I don't believe in man made global warming. I like the way some (Tyler) so easily throw off comments like " oh, we all know this has been debunked" The people in the movie are reputable scientists, I don't thing you have the authority to make such a statement. Follow the money, global warming is now big business. Its the exact same fear mongering that so many accuse Bush of exaggerating the terrorist threat. I guess fear mongering is ok when it suits you.

Hi Brian -

1) putting something I didn't say in quotes, and directly attributing it to me doesn't exactly make your argument stronger.

2) Denying global warming is not big business? Follow the money, indeed.

A reporter for Australian television politely but firmly confronted the producer of this misleading "documentary" with basic climatological facts. It's fascinating, at least for those with open minds. Remarkable how much tougher journalism can be in other English-speaking countries than in our own:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE

I'm tempted to tell you to mind your own beeswax, Brian....

Maybe this whole global warming hysteria is a ruse in order to put nuclear power in a more advantages position. God knows we are falling behind all other nations in this area. France is now the leader in nuclear power.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3193447.ece

Too bad they have to resort to letting criminals in the mafia dispose of their waste. I'm sure Words About Somaliaand the East coast of Africa are thrilled that France has more nuclear power stations than any other country.

Tyler, I don't think that I have ever seen anything do such a thorough job of debunking as that link to Durango Bill. It was like Woody Allen pulling Marshall McLuhan out of the crowd in Annie Hall. Brian, take the time to click on "debunked" above and then go sit in the corner. He blew away your guy point by point, chart by chart, and then exposed his phoney credentials. Dept of Climatology indeed.

Brian- I'll lend you a video camera i dont use any more.
it's a Sony Hi8.
I've gone to digital, but i think it's still pretty useful.
email me at mosesk@roadrunner.com

Rainman,
I did go to that link, in fact I watched the debate after the grilling of the producer of the movie. You should watch some of that debate also. The points that the commentator was making were minor. Some of the graphs that were shown were made by scientists years ago, rather than extend those graphs with tainted data from the UN they kept the origional graphs. Many of these temperature readings are inaccurate because of local heating in cities, the satellite data is more accurate. Also when the soviet union broke up we lost a lot of temperature data locations which previously were being used. I like the line by Patrick Moore where his ex-greenpeace colleges want to ban an element on the periodic table - chlorine.
The idea that such a tiny amount of CO2 can have an unproportionally large effect on climate is absurd. I saw somebody making an analagy on this point which was so ridiculous it gave me a head ache. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect. The CO2 that man produces is a tiny portion of a much larger co2 contribution by natural means. The only way to effect actual change in the release of man made CO2 would be way more extensive than what is being proposed. China is building new coal power plants every month, I don't think you realize the scope of it all. Adding a global warming tax on to my gasoline price will do nothing except hire more global warming specialists up in Sacramento.

Thanks for the offer El Anonimo !

Methinks that global warming scares the crap out of Brian, and that he's just whistling a happy tune as he walks past the graveyard.

What scares me is the draconian punishment that the greens will inflict upon working people of this country.

"What scares me is the draconian punishment that the greens will inflict upon working people of this country".

Brian, that's a harsh statement. Could you please elaborate and provide backup for what you are implying.

Thanks!

What scares me is the draconian punishment that the greens will inflict upon working people of this country.

What scares me is the draconian, psychotic, and possibly irreversible punishments that will be visited upon every living thing on the planet by medieval thinkers who worship at the twin altars of "Me Me Me" & "Money Above All Else".

LTOR,
1) Higher cost of power, by mandating costly and inefficiant technologys such as solar, even with tax credits solar can't sustain it self.
2) Agriculture in California is a target. Eliminating dairy cows ( I need my Ovaltine !) and cattle.
3)Encoraging ethanol production which has been proven to be not cost effective.
4) Mandating the auto industry to produce higher and higher emission standards which are unrealistic. They are trying to squeeze out a couple of more fractions of percent of co2 for a cost that is not going to have a sigificant benifit. You would be better off eliminating one coal plant than by turning the auto industy upside down.
Meanwhile our economy grows and we get additional power (coal) from outside the state. All of these measures are counter acted by the additional coal plants in states like Montana who are sending us power. But we can say were green here in California.

Well, this conversation has taken an interesting turn, hasn't it? Might there be a connection between global warming deniers and those who are heavily invested (emotionally or financially) in the existing power infrastructure?

1) solar efficiency is hardly static. Steady innovations at the government and private sector level are pushing solar costs towards 3 cents/kw-hour.

2) strawman argument - who is "targeting" agriculture in California, other than advocates for personal vegetarianism? You think that those who say global warming is real, man-made and needs to be addressed are looking to eliminate your cows?

3) imagine that, ethanol efficiency isn't static either! I'm shocked!

4) The Model T celebrates its 100th birthday this year. Congrats, Model T! How you got 25 MPG is beyond comprehension, though. Unrealistic emission standards, indeed.

Tyler is right:

There are plenty of innovative scientists, inventors and even city officials out there (a big shout out to Mayor Daly of Chicago) who are driving this revolution.

I’ve never been all that interested in anything “scientific” but this stuff is beginning to truly fascinate me. I like, for example, of how this guy (below) seems to have solved the problems and limitations with the old wind turbines for use in high density environments.

http://www.aerotecture.com/ourteam.html

Who knows what type of technology will ultimately prevail, but thankfully, there are those out there who a) realize we are heading for catastrophe if we do nothing and maintain the status quo and b) who are capable and determined enough to keep pushing for solutions.

Agriculture in California may well be a target, but not for any of the reasons being discussed here.

Each year, about 50,000 acres of San Joaquin Valley land are being paved over for housing. (This might slow down a bit for the time being, but it won't stop.) There seems to be a move to outsource a lot of our food production? Why? I can only guess, but here's what I think: Big Ag is looking for cheaper labor and fewer-to-zero restrictions, which equals more profit. They can find what they're looking for South of the border. The Building Industry Association of America wants the farmland; it's flat, it's already graded for building in many instances, and there's usually an enormous water supply already in place.

There are plenty of lobbyists who are working to convince some pols that real estate revenue can far outstrip agricultural revenue, and you'll notice that it seems to be working -- there is no great move at the State, Federal, or even local level to protect farmland. Oxnard has some of the best topsoil on Earth, and it's being paved over a bit more each year. Does anyone hear any meaningful protesting outcry? No.

In Ventura County, there is a small but dedicated group of people who seem to be dedicated to vilifying agriculture and all of its attendant practices. Are these people simply pretending to be environmentalists when they are, in fact, shilling for the building industry and others who want to see a lot more people and a lot fewer oranges & row crops? (Oranges don't spend any money at the Mall, and people do.) I don't know, but some of their environmental rhetoric rings does not ring completely true to me. I sense that they have hidden agendas (agendae?) even though I can't prove it. What is for certain though is that more than a few of the people who treat Ag as if it were an evil interloper are people who have legal practices and/or are folks who have moved into rural areas and then started complaining about farming. When I read Deborah Bechtel's anti-farming letters to the editor of The Star, I can't help but wonder if she's one of the THE Bechtels; the family that owns one of the largest engineering firms in America). ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechtel )

I think it would be extremely sad if we were to become dependent on other countries for our food the way we are for our energy needs, but things seem to be headed that way. I would like to think that large organic farms would be the answer to some of the legitimate complaints about Ag's use of unnecessary chemicals, but organic farming is usually done on a smaller scale, and smaller farmers are being priced out of existence due to water and land costs.

Tyler is right:

There are plenty of innovative scientists, inventors and government (even city) officials out there (a big shout out to Mayor Daly of Chicago) who are driving this revolution.

I’ve never been all that interested in anything “scientific” but this stuff is beginning to truly fascinate me. I like, for example, of how this guy (below) seems to have solved the problems and limitations with the old wind turbines for use in high density environments.

http://www.aerotecture.com/ourteam.html
http://www.chicagoaudubon.org/pages/20-06_02.shtml

Who knows what type of technology will ultimately prevail, but thankfully, there are those out there who a) realize we are heading for catastrophe if we do nothing and maintain the status quo and b) who are capable and determined enough to keep pushing for solutions.

Tyler, Tyler Tyler,
"existing power infrastructure" I'm not sure if you mean power production or power in terms of who's in control, you probably mean both. At any rate our infustructure is just fine let's not mess with it.
If someone is selling solar energy at 3 cents/kw hr they would not need any help from anyone because they would be getting lots of investment and making lots of profit.
Whatever happened to that miracle enzyme you were touting last year? I don't see any giant corn stalks anywhere.
Hybrids are great, just don't force me to drive one. I don't think I would want my kids to drive one of those rolling egg shells, not too much protection when you crash. Wieght is directly proportional to fuel economy........." I can't change the laws of physics Captain !" ( Scotty )

Bullshit Brian. Ever hear of Titanium? Much stronger, and lighter than steel. How about carbon fiber? Also, you really should check with the NHTSA(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) at http://www.safercar.gov/, before you go around claiming giant SUV's and trucks are much safer than the Toyota Prius. In fact they are comparable in safety despite the relative weight discrepancy. Of course, the Ford Excursion puts out over five times the green house gases as the Prius.

"Remember, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!"

Sorry - didn't mean to double post...