In response to Brian Janak's misinformation:
Your baseless claim that CO2 "does not cause global warming, nor will it ever" flies in the face of almost 100 years of climate science and a scientific, global consensus. I don't know of even one Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) skeptic scientists who would dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you challenge not only climatology but basic physics as well? Next you will be challenging gravity, or start putting forth assurances that the earth is flat. Are you saying that Texas A&M staff are the latest addition to some fantastic globe-wide conspiracy of scientists bent on duping people into thinking AGW is real when it's just a scam? Amusing...
Your further erroneous statement about the diminishing effect on CO2 to hold heat is well refuted by this video (note that the video maker provides the SOURCE of his information):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI
The truth is, and is widely know, that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas - and is increasing dramatically in concentration in our atmosphere:
http://www.coalblock.org/images/stories/atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide 1744-2007.bmp
This is due to industrial, man-made releases - and is not disputed by any established scientific theory I've ever seen or heard of. If you can source one please do so, I'd love to take a look.
The only upgrades coal companies have made to their facilities is only because of massive pressure from environmental organizations - and they still release thousands of tons of toxic pollutants like SO2 and NOx, and hundreds of pounds of toxic heavy metals like mercury, etc. - every year.
Coal is not cheap - when all the many externalities are factored in it is the most expensive method of power generation. It is not plentiful - we will likely reach "peak coal" somewhere around 2050 in this country (and besides, what's more "plentiful" than the wind and sun? - this ridiculous argument always makes me laugh in amazement). Finally, coal is not reliable - at least no more so than renewable energy will be. Intermittentcy and unreliability are a myth and any small troubles associated with such issues will easily be compensated for by a scaling up of the industry and through hydro and energy storage facilities. We have a long time to adjust any kinks that develop in renewable energy - but we need to start now. We should have started over thirty years ago.
Posted by Ryan Rittenhouse on November 16, 2009 in response to Coal Star State
All Comments | Write a Comment | Read the Article
Her ability to say the most scathing truths, wrapped in satire was brilliant. I miss her.
Posted by ninamo on November 16, 2009 in response to South Toward Home
All Comments | Write a Comment | Read the Article
Thank you, thank you, thank you! Finally, someone is paying attention to what's going on up here with the water!
Posted by TexasAnn on November 16, 2009 in response to Boone Pickens Hates Water Conservation
All Comments | Write a Comment | Read the Article
I can't believe this fluff has been published by the paper of Jim Hightower and Molly Ivins. What a sophomoric, shallow - Rolex? Mercedes Benz? - totally bereft of any political or social context article. You really should do better than this. There have been some deeply thoughtful articles published on this sorry event. This isn't one of them.
Posted by R Swan on November 15, 2009 in response to Fort Hood Notebook
All Comments | Write a Comment | Read the Article
All of that water that Austin and other cities are pumping from the aquifers is really someone else's water. the cicties like it best when they can all use cheap water stolen from property owners from outside the city. Pickens would make them pay for it.
Posted by aaCharley on November 15, 2009 in response to Boone Pickens Hates Water Conservation
All Comments | Write a Comment | Read the Article
pickens = scum
Posted by pancho on November 15, 2009 in response to Boone Pickens Hates Water Conservation
All Comments | Write a Comment | Read the Article
the biggest difference i see in the fightback in 07 versus the non-fightback now is the legislative session. we were able to make noise in front of always vulnerable pols. now we are against commissioners and their ilk who don't need to get re-elected. their only concern is quick maximization of bribes and kickbacks. i also think crossing our fingers that the epa will help is foolhardy. texas has never respected the feds and never will.
Posted by jojo on November 14, 2009 in response to Coal Star State
All Comments | Write a Comment | Read the Article
too late for a dark horse in my estimation. better to dust off ann richards' corpse.
Posted by jojo on November 14, 2009 in response to Shocking Development: A Democrat with Guts
All Comments | Write a Comment | Read the Article
What has happened is that land-based temperature readings by some measurements have leveled off in the last few years. They also have a few scientific theories that CO2 can only trap so much heat even as the concentration goes up. So they are back to being deniers.
However, even a cursory look at water temperatures and glaciers shows that the situation is actually worse than anticipated. Even if temperatures don't continue to increase, somewhat doubtful, we are already at such a high level we need to quickly reduce the CO2 levels, not slow the increase down.
Posted by Gary D on November 14, 2009 in response to Paul Burka's Climate Idiocy
All Comments | Write a Comment | Read the Article
Good work, but be more specific about how her husband has profited from her earmarking. She could go to jail for those personal kickbacks, but nobody seems willing to stand up to her and take her on.
Posted by Conversation Starter on November 17, 2009 in response to Exclusive! Kay Bailey Hutchison's Message to the People of Texas
All Comments | Write a Comment | Read the Article