Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
I urge you to re-examine your plan. It is important to have those who attend know that there is no climate crisis. The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.

I see the weatherman has graced us with his interpretation of the Arctic Sea Ice death spiral.
Can you guess where he see his evidence? Here is a hint "recovered"
(can you say bat shyte crazy)

ArcticEscalator500.gif


At this rate it should "recover" to a summer of zero ice in the Arctic by 2030 maybe sooner.
 
And now for a little fun.....

[N2tYC8PlbVc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2tYC8PlbVc&list=UUtZdUYUZr493AUh_EInBYxQ
 
I love all you experts, LOL.
i see no one is an expert in this field, yet a lot think they are.
 
Go ahead and send the author your thoughts.
I am sure he will find them interesting.



I see the weatherman has graced us with his interpretation of the Arctic Sea Ice death spiral.
Can you guess where he see his evidence? Here is a hint "recovered"
(can you say bat shyte crazy)

ArcticEscalator500.gif


At this rate it should "recover" to a summer of zero ice in the Arctic by 2030 maybe sooner.
 
You guys are so funny.
Go ahead and read about this author.
Seems pretty qualified.
Go ahead ant tell us what you do not like about his qualifications?


Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

Seems there are others that have dug into that claim and have come up with some inconvenient truths...

http://www.southernstudies.org/2011...ontrarian-roy-spencers-oil-industry-ties.html

Spencer's Big Oil connections
As a global-warming contrarian with strong climate-science credentials, Roy Spencer is a relative rarity. He earned his doctorate in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981 and went on to serve as a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., where he and Christy received an award for their work monitoring global temperatures with satellites. Spencer became a research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville in 2001.
While his personal website notes that his research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies and not oil companies, he does have a leadership role in groups with financial ties to Big Oil. They include:
* George C. Marshall Institute. Spencer currently serves as a director at the George C. Marshall Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit that receives substantial funding from oil and gas interests -- including Exxon, which has given the group at least $840,000 since 1998, according to Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets.org database. The Marshall Institute used to restrict its funding to private foundations and individual donors, but in the late 1990s, after it began working to cast doubt on global warming, the group made the decision to accept money from corporations and their foundations.
The Marshall Institute's former executive director, Matthew B. Crawford, wrote an essay for the New York Times back in 2009 that accused the group -- which he did not name -- of distorting facts in pursuit of its ideological agenda:
But certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style -- that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.
* Cornwall Alliance. Spencer is a member of the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance, a conservative Christian public-policy group that promotes a free-market approach to environmental stewardship and whose "Resisting the Green Dragon" campaign portrays the climate-protection movement as a sort of false religion. The Cornwall Alliance has close tiesto a conservative policy group called the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which has received over $580,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org. Paul Driessen, who played a guiding role in forming the group now known as the Cornwall Alliance, also served as a consultant for ExxonMobil and CFACT, which has also received at least $60,500 from Chevron and $1.28 million from the the foundation of the Scaife family, whose wealth comes in part from Gulf Oil, as Think Progressreports.
* Encounter Books. Spencer is the author of three books critical of mainstream climate science: Climate Confusion, published in 2008, and The Great Global Warming Blunder and The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama's Global Warming Agenda, both released last year. All of those works were published by Encounter Books, which is a project of the conservative nonprofit Encounter for Culture and Education. That group's major funders include the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, which in turn is controlled by one of the owners of Kansas-based Koch Industries, among the world's richest privately held companies with extensive holdings in oil refineries and pipelines. The Kochs have played acritical role in funding climate-denial efforts, contributing $24.9 million to organizations that have worked to cast doubt on mainstream climate science.
* Tech Central Station. Spencer served as a columnist and a member of the science roundtable for Tech Central Station. Until 2006, TCS was run by DCI Group, a lobbying and public-relations firm that has represented ExxonMobil.
So while Spencer may have "never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service," he has certainly served the oil industry's interest in amplifying doubt about climate change and downplaying the scientific consensus that it's real and caused in large part by human activity.
 
BY ANDREW FREEDMAN2 DAYS AGO
A group of climate scientists has brought satellite imagery from the 1960s back from the dead, not only extending the record of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice by at least another decade compared to what researchers had previously known, but also providing new opportunities for studying the planet to a wide range of researchers.

The restoration of imagery from the Nimbus satellite program, which ended in the 1970s, is an example of an experiment in obtaining access to so-called “dark data,” which refers to data that exists in some form, such as a ship’s logbook or old satellite data tapes, but is not currently accessible to present-day researchers.

SEE ALSO: Are We Totally Screwed? What Antarctica's 'Collapsing' Ice Sheet Means for Us

In this case, the 35-millimeter data tapes from the satellites were lost in the bowels of facilities at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The Nimbus data provides the earliest known view of Antarctica’s sea ice, which has made headlines recently for setting a record for the largest ice extent, and spotted large breaks in Arctic sea ice where none were thought to have occurred. The modern satellite record of sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic starts in 1979, so the added data gives scientists a longer-term view that informs their understanding of present-day events.

Antarctic Sea Ice 1969
Antarctic sea ice extent (marked in red) in 1969, as observed by a Nimbus satellite.
IMAGE: NSIDC
There are also photos of Hurricane Camille, one of the most powerful hurricanes ever to strike the U.S., which devastated the northeast Gulf Coast in 1969.

In their quest to unlock the secrets of the planet’s climate system and better understand the consequences of manmade global warming,
scientists are increasingly turning to dark data projects to provide new insight.
scientists are increasingly turning to dark data projects to provide new insight.

David Gallaher, a researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, said he and his colleagues had to overcome numerous obstacles, including technical and bureaucratic hurdles, to read data tapes from the Nimbus satellites. There were a total of seven Nimbus satellites launched between 1964 and 1978, and machines to read the 35-millimeter data reels hadn’t been made since the 1970s, Gallaher said.

Once his team gained access to them and borrowed a machine capable of reading the tapes, they scanned all 250,000 images. However, there were still more challenges to overcome, such as figuring out what spot on Earth the pictures were showing, since the images lacked location data. Simply guessing the location wouldn't have worked, considering how disorienting some of the data was.

Arctic Lead
A lead in Arctic sea ice, outlined in purple, observed in 1969 from a Nimbus satellite.
IMAGE: NSIDC
Gallaher and his colleagues managed to find an old Air Force file of satellite navigation data that enabled them to create a cross-referencing system for undergraduate students to use when cataloging the images.

The only records we have of Antarctic sea ice in the 1960s
The Nimbus satellites had visible light sensors that were considered state of the art for the time, as well as infrared light sensors. This data allows researchers to spot sea ice extent, among other things. The new record of Antarctic sea ice that has resulted is intriguing, Gallaher says. “We actually found the ice edges and it’s been kind of fascinating.”



According to the recovered data, 1964 was largest sea ice year in the Antarctic, until 2014, that is. Yet just two years later, sea ice declined by 20%, to the smallest extent on record there. “There was wild variability going on,” Gallaher said.

“The Arctic was colder, but in the Antarctic, strange things were going on,”
“The Arctic was colder, but in the Antarctic, strange things were going on,” he said. Scientists are still trying to determine why Antarctic sea ice has been growing in recent years even while the land-based ice has been melting at an increasing rate, adding to global sea level rise.

The high variability in the 1960s, based on the Nimbus satellite data, suggests that scientists may not yet have a full understanding of what governs sea ice dynamics in the Southern Hemisphere. The Nimbus data is the only direct data of 1960s-era Antarctic sea ice that scientists have from that time period, Gallaher says.

Hurricane Camille
Hurricane Camille, as viewed by a Nimbus satellite.
IMAGE: NSIDC
Sea ice extents in the Arctic were much larger in the 1960s than they are now, Gallaher said, which is consistent with the global warming-induced decline in Arctic sea ice. Still, even in years with higher volume’s of sea ice, the satellite spotted ice-free areas near the North Pole that were 200 to 300 miles across. “We found holes in ice at North Pole that we didn’t expect to find,” he said.

“It’s a big hole,” said Garrett Campbell, who also works on the Nimbus project from the NSIDC.

“We basically opened a window into the past… this data was truly dark.”
“We basically opened a window into the past… this data was truly dark.”

The data recovered from the old satellites, which have long since burned up in the Earth’s atmosphere, extend beyond climate science and might include studying deforestation, sea surface temperatures, human development patterns such as highways and cities, and more. “We haven’t even scratched the surface of what people might be able to do with it,” Gallaher said.

Another term for the dark data project, Gallaher says, is “techno-archeology.” He said there is talk of starting a foundation dedicated to funding such projects, because traditional sources of science research funding, such as the National Science Foundation, don’t have specific programs geared toward such activities.

“This is not a terribly expensive process to get this stuff back, but it does take some money to do it,” he said. The entire project, which NASA funded, cost only $450,000, compared to the many millions it cost to put the satellites into orbit in the first place, Gallaher said.

“It looks like a new satellite but it’s fifty years old."

Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments.
 
Friday Funny – You’re a climate denier if:
Guest Blogger / 2 hours ago October 24, 2014
By Mark Heyer – You’re a climate denier if:

- You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 17+ years despite rapid growth of CO2. 97% of real climate scientists acknowledge that it hasn’t. They call it the “pause” or “hiatus” although there is no scientific evidence that warming will pick up again or when.

The_pause_wood_for_trees

- If you believe that Antarctica is melting. NASA satellite data shows that the sea ice extent around Antarctica in 2014 is the largest in recorded history.

antarctic_seaice_sept19[1]

- If you believe that the observed West Antarctica warming is caused by warming of the atmosphere. Recent studies show that the heat is coming from volcanoes below the glacier. Besides, air temperatures in the area are far below zero. Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air.

antarctic-volcano[1]

- If you believe that 97% of climate scientists support the claim that global warming is driven directly by man-made CO2. It is true that 97% believe in climate change, which is the question they were asked, which is like asking them if the sun rises in the morning. Far fewer agreed with the man-made warming question and few of them agree on the details.

97_percent-vs-reality

- You believe that climate models accurately represent the climate of the earth. They don’t. Even the scientists who run them and the IPCC agree that they cannot predict the future of the climate. This is now obvious to everyone since they totally failed to predict the leveling off of atmospheric temperatures since 2000.

b40bb-haroldhaydenipcc

- You think that climate models accurately model the behavior of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. They don’t. They are completely unable to model the behavior of 97% of the greenhouse gas, water vapor and clouds. The dire predictions of runaway global warming from CO2 were based on the conjecture that water vapor would amplify the effects of CO2. The lack of recent warming while CO2 continues to increase shows clearly that water vapor is either neutral or in fact suppresses the warming from CO2.

Clouds cast a shadow over IPCC climate models.
Clouds cast a shadow over IPCC climate models.

- If you believe that around 2000, CO2 magically changed its mind and decided to warm the oceans instead of the air. Some scientists speculate that this is the case but there is little or no hard science to support the notion. Some even speculate that the heat is going into the deep oceans, even though there is no way to measure it or find it.

NOAA_UPPER_OCEAN_HEAT_CONTENT

- You believe that man-made global warming is causing climate disasters. The International Red Cross reports that natural disasters are at a ten year low. Tornado and hurricane activity have also been at near record lows.







Don’t be an anti-science climate denier.
 
OBD - you are extremely tiresome as you seem to go to the same old weak sources and copy and paste stuff that is complete nonsense. I'd say you're a climate denier if you believe just about anything on the WhatsUpWithThat website. As an example, lets spot check just one of the "facts" presented above - At random I picked "- If you believe that Antarctica is melting. NASA satellite data shows that the sea ice extent around Antarctica in 2014 is the largest in recorded history."

Now lets go to the National Snow and Ice Date center (funded by NSF, NOAA and NASA) site at http://nsidc.org. The first thing one might notice is the headline that reads - "Arctic sea ice continues low; Antarctic ice hits a new high" - note that the WhatsUp site focussed only on the second aspect of that headline and got it wrong when it says that the "sea ice extent around Antarctica in 2014 is the largest in recorded history". Now go to the interactive charts on sea ice measurements from 1979 to present - http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ . Select the last 6 years in the graph. You'll see this -
ArticSeaIce2009_2014.jpg

Select that first 6 years in the graph - you'll see this.
ArticSeaIce1979_1984.jpg

For clarity - the solid black line is the average amount of sea ice over the monitored time frame. The grey area is two std. deviations and the other solid lines are data for each year. What is immediately apparent to any who look, is that the latter years are below the black line (less sea ice) while the earlier years are above the black line (more sea ice).

Play around with the display anyway you wish and then come back with a statement about the sea ice. Try to defend the statement that "that the sea ice extent around Antarctica in 2014 is the largest in recorded history". Use the actual data.

My point is that you have a great ability to latch onto sources of information and repost them without bothering to even spot check the information. I picked ONE piece of information to spot check from the above post and it was absolutely wrong. I'd bet that much of the rest of the post is also wrong at worst and at the best misleading if one goes to the actual data sources and tries to interpret them for one self. If you're not willing to do this, then why post? Most of what you've posted in this thread is easily demonstrable as garbage, if one takes the time to look. My inference from this is that either:
A) You are being mislead by the sources of information you chose to read and you simply cannot see it or cannot admit it. Confirmation bias is a very real phenomenon and it seems to be stronger in some.
B) You are intentionally trying to mislead others for some other purpose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Published on Mar 29, 2013
A montage of the former Stanford Woods Institute Senior Fellow and renowned climate scientist Stephen Schneider discussing climate change. Food for thought

[7YZ84pD895Q] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YZ84pD895Q
 
Well as everyone else is doing copy and paste and there are no "real" climate scientists you will just have to deal with it.
You believe what works for you.
Carry on.

OBD - you are extremely tiresome as you seem to go to the same old weak sources and copy and paste stuff that is complete nonsense. I'd say you're a climate denier if you believe just about anything on the WhatsUpWithThat website. As an example, lets spot check just one of the "facts" presented above - At random I picked "- If you believe that Antarctica is melting. NASA satellite data shows that the sea ice extent around Antarctica in 2014 is the largest in recorded history."

Now lets go to the National Snow and Ice Date center (funded by NSF, NOAA and NASA) site at http://nsidc.org. The first thing one might notice is the headline that reads - "Arctic sea ice continues low; Antarctic ice hits a new high" - note that the WhatsUp site focussed only on the second aspect of that headline and got it wrong when it says that the "sea ice extent around Antarctica in 2014 is the largest in recorded history". Now go to the interactive charts on sea ice measurements from 1979 to present - http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ . Select the last 6 years in the graph. You'll see this -
View attachment 14562

Select that first 6 years in the graph - you'll see this.
View attachment 14563

For clarity - the solid black line is the average amount of sea ice over the monitored time frame. The grey area is two std. deviations and the other solid lines are data for each year. What is immediately apparent to any who look, is that the latter years are below the black line (less sea ice) while the earlier years are above the black line (more sea ice).

Play around with the display anyway you wish and then come back with a statement about the sea ice. Try to defend the statement that "that the sea ice extent around Antarctica in 2014 is the largest in recorded history". Use the actual data.

My point is that you have a great ability to latch onto sources of information and repost them without bothering to even spot check the information. I picked ONE piece of information to spot check from the above post and it was absolutely wrong. I'd bet that much of the rest of the post is also wrong at worst and at the best misleading if one goes to the actual data sources and tries to interpret them for one self. If you're not willing to do this, then why post? Most of what you've posted in this thread is easily demonstrable as garbage, if one takes the time to look. My inference from this is that either:
A) You are being mislead by the sources of information you chose to read and you simply cannot see it or cannot admit it. Confirmation bias is a very real phenomenon and it seems to be stronger in some.
B) You are intentionally trying to mislead others for some other purpose.
 
Well as everyone else is doing copy and paste and there are no "real" climate scientists you will just have to deal with it.
You believe what works for you.
Carry on.
With regards to the above post of yours, since you didn't supply any substantive response to my pointing out that the WhatsUp cut and paste was just plain wrong with regards to sea ice, I can assume that you've gone off to other sources of information and now agree with the assessment that the data shows sea ice decreasing?

To be clear, I've never claimed to be an expert in climate science. I have claimed to be a scientist, with a Ph.D. in Chemistry and a faculty position in Microbiology. What I have claimed in regards to climate science is a good ability to find the expert opinion and to ACTUALLY listen to it. AAAS is one such source of expert opinion but there are many others. As I've said repeatedly in this thread, the vast majority of the experts in the field of climate science (those who really study it) agree that the earth is warming and that man made CO2 in the atmosphere is a major contributing factor.

It's possible to find a small number of people in any field who write arguments about well established science. For example - the nobel prize winner Cary Mullis has long promoted his own theory that HIV is not the causative agent for AIDs. Yes he has a nobel prize and yes he really believes that HIV doesn't cause AIDs. If I chose to believe such an outlier (even though he has a Nobel prize), I might make a bad choice should I be discovered to be HIV positive. Since there's a ton of data to indicate that HIV is causal for AID AND since I've been directly involved in experiments that where this connection is clear, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Cary Mullis is wrong about this. But if I wasn't a faculty member in microbiology and instead had continued in my original career in physical chemistry, what would I do? I'd look at the broad scientific consensus and I'd still come to the conclusion that Cary Mullis is a whacko when it comes to HIV/AIDs denialism. It's really not that hard to do.

I don't need to "believe what works for me", I need to first get the actual facts and then interpret them as best as possible AND when I'm not an expert, I'll seek the knowledge of REAL experts like those on any of the multiple different panels that have published reports on climate change and man's impact on it. Part of the problem I have with much of what you have posted is not the beliefs or interpretation of facts but in many cases the actual facts are just plain wrong (such as the sea ice example). If we can't actually agree on the data or some objective measure of reality, we have no chance of agreeing on the interpretation or appropriate response. One of my biggest fears and concerns in the past several years is that (particularly in the U.S.) there seems to be a very active narrative that not only disagrees with the expert interpretations of available data but seems designed to intentionally undermine the facts by continually publishing untruths and promoting them through a wide variety of media. We've gone from everyone is entitled to their own opinion to everyone is entitled to their own reality. I personally don't even think it's reasonable to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion for the same reasons discussed here - http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978. As stated within -
"The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse."
 
Past Climate Change Was Caused by the Ocean, Not Just the Atmosphere, New Rutgers Study Finds
Anthony Watts / 1 hour ago October 24, 2014
ocean_conveyor
The ocean conveyor moves heat and water between the hemispheres, along the ocean bottom. It also moves carbon dioxide.

Most of the concerns about climate change have focused on the amount of greenhouse gases that have been released into the atmosphere.But in a new study published in Science, a group of Rutgers researchers have found that circulation of the ocean plays an equally important role in regulating the earth’s climate.

The study published in Science provides a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of climate change today
Thursday, October 23, 2014
In their study, the researchers say the major cooling of Earth and continental ice build-up in the Northern Hemisphere 2.7 million years ago coincided with a shift in the circulation of the ocean – which pulls in heat and carbon dioxide in the Atlantic and moves them through the deep ocean from north to south until it’s released in the Pacific.

The ocean conveyor system, Rutgers scientists believe, changed at the same time as a major expansion in the volume of the glaciers in the northern hemisphere as well as a substantial fall in sea levels. It was the Antarctic ice, they argue, that cut off heat exchange at the ocean’s surface and forced it into deep water. They believe this caused global climate change at that time, not carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

“We argue that it was the establishment of the modern deep ocean circulation – the ocean conveyor – about 2.7 million years ago, and not a major change in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere that triggered an expansion of the ice sheets in the northern hemisphere,” says Stella Woodard, lead author and a post-doctoral researcher in the Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences. Their findings, based on ocean sediment core samples between 2.5 million to 3.3 million years old, provide scientists with a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of climate change today.

The study shows that changes in heat distribution between the ocean basins is important for understanding future climate change. However, scientists can’t predict precisely what effect the carbon dioxide currently being pulled into the ocean from the atmosphere will have on climate. Still, they argue that since more carbon dioxide has been released in the past 200 years than any recent period in geological history, interactions between carbon dioxide, temperature changes and precipitation, and ocean circulation will result in profound changes.

Scientists believe that the different pattern of deep ocean circulation was responsible for the elevated temperatures 3 million years ago when the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was arguably what it is now and the temperature was 4 degree Fahrenheit higher. They say the formation of the ocean conveyor cooled the earth and created the climate we live in now.

“Our study suggests that changes in the storage of heat in the deep ocean could be as important to climate change as other hypotheses – tectonic activity or a drop in the carbon dioxide level – and likely led to one of the major climate transitions of the past 30 million years,” says Yair Rosenthal, co-author and professor of marine and coastal sciences at Rutgers

The paper’s co-authors are Woodard, Rosenthal, Kenneth Miller and James Wright, both professors of earth and planetary sciences at Rutgers; Beverly Chiu, a Rutgers undergraduate majoring in earth and planetary sciences; and Kira Lawrence, associate professor of geology at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania.
 
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10...-50000-veterans-addresses-climate-change.html

In One Fell Swoop Obama Announces Solar Jobs For 50,000 Veterans and Takes On Climate Change

By: Rmusemore from Rmuse
Friday, October, 24th, 2014, 10:00 am
Over the past five years Republicans have opposed any and every attempt by President Obama to jumpstart the economy; particularly when it came to creating jobs. He also made, what Americans concerned about anthropogenic (manmade) climate change believed were, modest proposals to reduce carbon dioxide emissions; that is until he called for a thirty percent reduction in carbon emissions earlier this year. Republicans reacted to that news with their typical fossil fuel industry devotion by launching vicious attacks on the Environmental Protection Agency tasked with ensuring power-generating plants’ comply with the new requirements.
Yesterday, in one fell swoop, the President took decisive action to address both job creation for Veterans and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The White House announced that beginning this fall the United States will launch a six-year job training program for America’s Veterans in the growing solar panel installation industry. Since Republicans have relentlessly obstructed jobs programs for America’s Veterans, the President took it upon himself to enact the program at American military bases and provide job training for at least 50,000 veterans. It is training for about 50,000 more Veterans than Republicans have provided despite several proposals and requests by the President to help America’s fighting men and women returning from war.

The Veterans’ job training program is just one of many initiatives the White House said will reduce carbon dioxide emissions contributing to climate change by more than 300-million tons, and save American homeowners and businesses billions upon billions of dollars in energy bills. To create even more jobs, as part of the President’s lone crusade to reduce the damaging effects of climate change, the Agriculture Department will spend nearly $70 million to fund 540 new solar and renewable energy projects that will target rural and farming areas. There is also a new Energy Department proposal for stricter efficiency standards for commercial air conditioners the energy department said will cut emissions more than any other efficiency standard it has issued to date, and help businesses cut their energy costs substantially.

It is true the President’s proposals to create jobs and reduce the effects of climate change are modest compared with his previous requests for Congress to act, but with Republicans opposing any action on jobs, especially for Veterans, or to address climate change, something is better than nothing. This President has begged, cajoled, and attempted to shame Republicans in Congress to do their jobs for the American people and promote cost-saving clean energy, invest in job-creating infrastructure projects, and support carbon emission reductions to no avail, so Obama exercised his Presidential authority and addressed two issues at once.

It is certain the Koch brothers will direct Republicans to launch an opposition campaign against both the Veteran’s job program and clean energy proposals. Through ALEC and the Koch’s Americans for Prosperity, there has been a multi-faceted assault on any renewable or clean energy programs across the nation because the Koch’s will not tolerate any energy source that cuts into the oil industry’s profits. In fact, it was reported yesterday that in Texas, the state’s Republican comptroller said it is unfair that the wind energy industry received tax credits to grow the industry. Susan Combs singled out wind energy and said tax credits gave the industry “an unfair market advantage over the other power source.” Translation; the fossil fuel industry will not countenance competition despite its “unfair market advantage” amounting to billions-of-dollars in tax credits, billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies, and freedom to pollute.



What is typically Republican about Combs remarks is the lie that cheaper energy costs and clean energy adversely affects Texas residents’ wallets. What Texas Republicans and the oil industry did not find unfair were tax exemptions covering the “high-cost natural gas drilling” that cut operators tax bills by more than $7 billion according to data from Republican Combs’ own comptroller office. Combs also failed to address the Texas state Legislative Budget Board’s recommendation to overhaul oil industry tax breaks and taxpayer-funded incentives that have “reduced many producers’ tax liabilities to zero.” Interestingly, a partner in an oil industry firm in Austin said that having a zero tax liability was being “misconstrued by the folks that would do harm to the oil and gas industry as a giveaway, but it’s really not.”

President Obama’s one-man action on climate change and a much-needed job training program for over 50,000 Veterans, although modest, is something the Koch-Republicans are not going to allow without a fierce battle. It is noteworthy that the President’s action will not only help 50,000 Veterans, solar energy installed at military bases and installations will save the Defense Department untold billions of dollars in energy costs now and into the future that one would think budget conscious Republicans would celebrate. However, they have shown that where the fossil fuel industry is concerned, cost savings and budget restraint never enters into their austerity agenda.

Republicans have spent over five years demonstrating they are not the least bit interested in providing job training or jobs for any Americans, much less Veterans because they claim it is too costly. Subsidies, tax breaks, and incentives for the oil industry, on the other hand, are a necessary cost in Republicans’ minds. That’s why the President’s idea of a job training program specific to the renewable energy sector is brilliant; if for no other reason than to send Republicans a message that this President is serious about taking care of Veterans, creating jobs, and combatting climate change whether they like it or not.

In One Fell Swoop Obama Announces Solar Jobs For 50,000 Veterans and Takes On Climate Change was written by Rmuse for PoliticusUSA.
© PoliticusUSA, Fri, Oct 24th, 2014 — All Rights Reserved
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top