Posted 8 months, 20 days ago in 
Loading ...
It is frightening to see the inaccuracies and falsehoods being taught our students in school today about the myth of man-made global warming, as evidenced by the comments in “Student Voices” from Avery Kuper of Fruita.
The fact that he thinks that hurricanes and tsunamis are caused by the so-called global warming shows the lack of good education. It makes you wonder what else they are being taught.
RICHARD BLOSSER
Grand Junction
43 Responses to “Students being taught falacies of man-made global warming”
Posted March 5th, 2009 at 6:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Spank their little butts and give those kids a proper homeschooling in the ways of creationism and the apocalyse. Skip that science junk, and reason & logical ways of thought. Literature - forget it. Hell, who needs P.E. and music and art anyway? What we need are good employees and more obedient soldiers.
You can never be too paranoid, Richard.
Posted March 5th, 2009 at 6:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
UF…. I agree!!!!
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 10:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WOW! Maybe we need to check our sources of information on global warming and best practices in education and make sure they are reliable.
Shall we teach obedience? Or Shall we teach or students to be creative thinkers to help move or country foward?
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 10:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Calm down Mr. Blosser.
Students get the details of complicated ideas wrong all the time.
What’s a real shame is when adults, who ought to know better, get simple things wrong AND rather than take responsibility for this mistake, instead publicly criticize and attempt to humiliate children.
Get a mirror, Mr. Blosser. You will see a person who ought to be truly ashamed of his behavior.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 11:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Obama’s proposed cap and trade system is, in the name of slowing global warming, going to substantially increase electric bills. If that plan passes, we will see just how many folks are convinced that global warming is, indeed, an impending catastrophe.
It’s not hard voting for “green” as long as it costs nothing or as long as someone else is paying the cost. Folks have been dead set against increasing gasoline taxes and politicians have shied away from proposing them. Let’s see how a tax on electricity is received.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 11:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“So called” Global Warming? Maybe some of you need to look around. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the weather is unusually warm for this time of year. I get it though, you must be relying on the phil the groundhog for your weather info.
I agree with Bruce86 100%
Oh yeah that’s a great idea throw science and all that other crap under the bus. Wait those are the things that help our military run the way that it should. That sounds a lot like something Adolf would say. Should our obedient soldiers have blonde hair and blue eyes too? Maybe you should start your own school like Charlie Manson did. Then maybe you would get the results your looking for(he had obedient soldiers). Proper obedience starts at home. Hmmmm I wonder if we would be able to discuss this matter like we are if WWII went the other way.
Try educating yourself before you criticize children and their public educators.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 11:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “..going to substantially increase electric bills. If that plan passes, we will see just how many folks are convinced that global warming is, indeed, an impending catastrophe.”
Confusing economics and science again are we? Is science to be dependent upon “what it costs”? Is that what the gentleman is telling us? “Cost” only applies to the procedures or process we choose to follow in addressing or correcting a problem. No logical person would confuse that with whether there is, or is not, a problem.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 11:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Kratos, I hope Mr. Blosser and OLD Uncle Fester do not read your posting for fear of what they would do when they realize their similar beliefs to these past figures.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 11:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You global warming enthusiasts get all in a tizzy whenver someone questions your scientific facts.
My post does not quesion your facts. My post questions whether the folks are sufficiently convinced of your facts and willing to pay for them.
I don’t believe they are. If they were, they would not object to raising gasoline taxes. Will they object to raising electicity taxes? That is the question.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 11:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “You global warming enthusiasts get all in a tizzy whenver someone questions your scientific facts.”
Nobody is “enthusiastic” about global warming. Nowhere in the above posts were any “scientific facts” questioned, or even mentioned. And, as to “scientific facts”, as many of us are not scientists, and not within our area of expertise, we will base whatever decision we make in that area,with what we consider the most reliable source.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 12:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Not in a tizzy of someone questioning scientific facts (facts are facts), more in a tizzy of beliefs from “the old days” questioning our public education system, and the need for obedient soldiers!
As for the raised taxes in gas and electricity…it is bound to happen, and more proof that we need to expand to alternative energy AS WELL as oil (not eliminate oil).
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 12:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Skeptic, the quesion I posed was very simple. Are the folks willing to PAY for attacking global warming?
I have written here a number of times that I favor a steep increase in gasoline taxes. Not because I am convinced global warming is a catastrophy in waiting, but because I want to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. I see no political enthusiasm behind this proposal. I hear no Democrats proposing this as a way of reducing carbon emissions.
So if a tax on gasoline is taboo, why is a tax on electricity going to fly?
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 12:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I apologize for complicating your simple question, but I am doing it again…I don’t understand no political enthusiasm behind this proposal of reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy. So allow me to try and adress this with a question.
Was this not a topic in many of the presidential debates, as well as a major portion of one of the presidential candidates platform?
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
yoohoo, skeptic & Kratos - seems you missed my sarcasm in the original post here. It was intended as a smartass response to Dick B.’s completely ridiculous letter. Next time I’ll clarify things a bit better…!
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 12:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
skeptic: “Was this not a topic in many of the presidential debates, as well as a major portion of one of the presidential candidates platform?”
Talk is cheap.
MCain spoke of a temporary “cut” in gasoline taxes.
Cap and trade does nothing to reduce the reliance on foreign sources. It goes after coal, one resource we have in substantial quantity.
Cap and trade was discussed in the campaign. But did you ever hear anyone in the campaign discussing how this program would increase the average homeowner’s annual electric bill by $1,200?
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 12:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bfrog - I’m totally willing to pay handsomely for things that are “no-regrets” based (things we do regardless of climate change). Things that have myriad economic & ecologic benefits. Who, knows, some of these might even trip up the climate weirdness in a positive way. Such as:
- Electrifying the rail system
- Seriously increasing mileage standards (cars/trucks/boats/trains/planes/etc.)
- Seriously boosting the mix of alternatives energy sources
- Taxing consumption and carbon
- Stabilizing population numbers
- Decentralizing power-supply systems
- Protecting fisheries and prime farmlands and fresh-water supplies
Let’s be honest for a change, and create an honest markeplace that factors in external costs that we’ve long ingnored & denied.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 1:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Weaning the US off of foreign oil is one thing. Taxing the US consumer to do it is another. I’m not surprised there is no political enthusiasm for that.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 1:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Uncle, I am sure you are.
But my question remains, do you believe that the average American, today, will go along with a $1,200 annual tax on electricity for the sake of moving towards reducing carbon emmissions?
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 1:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “Weaning the US off of foreign oil is one thing. Taxing the US consumer to do it is another. I’m not surprised there is no political enthusiasm for that.”
And that is because too many individuals are so short-sighted. We see it all of the time, even in local government projects. They want the benefits but do not want to bear the burdens. Seems to some of us that such is the exact opposite of how any responsible and mature adult should behave.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 1:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So Scott, why do you think that politicians will go along with a tax on electricity and not gasoline? Is it because they think they can sneak one by under the cover of this being a corporate tax?
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 1:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “..why do you think that politicians will go along with a tax on electricity and not gasoline?”
Quite simple really, because they don’t have the courage to ask the American people to do what has to be done.” The people get not only the government they deserve, but also the politicians they deserve. And as many of the electorate have no “spine” to do what has to be done, they elect politicians that have none. Until people change their “thinking” to encompass more than their personal and parochial concerns when voting, this will not change.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 1:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Probably, because the vast majority of our electricity is generated using domestically produced fuel. That way, it’s the greedy power companies fault.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 1:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree with you Scott. But, as you know, “greedy” power companies are, for the most part, regulated entities. They are guaranteed a rate of return on their investment by the state. So when the cost of generation rises, that cost is passed on directly to consumers.
I think you can be sure that the increased cost to consumers will be well advertised before any legislation comes up for a vote. These politicians who are scared to propose a gasoline tax increase in fear that they will be voted out of office, will likely get the same palpitations when they start hearing from their constituents on the electricity tax.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 2:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
But the perception is different to the average consumer. Look what happens every time Excel hikes their rates. Letters to the editor and the You Said It column about how terrible the power company is. Even if they advertise the tax increase, when the consumer opens his electric bill to find it has gone up, it will have the power companies name on the letterhead. Gasoline just has the price on the sign and the evening news talking about foreign oil.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 2:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A rate of return which is based only on electron production, however. Has nothing to do with conservation of energy, or the real toll of external costs like mercury in our waterways, CO2 in our atmosphere, giant fly ash piles (go look up above Cameo station) laced with mercury and arsenic. Can we please roll these costs into the generation equation somehow?
It’s always cheaper to save energy than to generate energy. As someone once said: “There’s no cheaper, cleaner power than power you don’t have to produce.”
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 4:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, before this bill ever comes to a vote, I can assure you, that everyone will know what it’s impact will be on the consumer. With that information, consumers can decide whether they want to pay for the program or not. They will then inform their elected representatives what they think.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 4:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Uncle, a rate of return includes the cost of generation. Revenues minus expenses. Expenses will include the cost of the carbon tax.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 5:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Since when does the opinion of the consumer influence their elected officials?
I’m only partially sarcastic there. If the bill does pass, by the time it goes into effect and people open their electric bills, they won’t remember why the bill is higher. All they’ll see is the amount and the power company’s name at the top.
Maybe I’m just a bit cynical about this…
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 6:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The cost of generating electricity will not change if requirements are implemented to reduce emissions such as CO2, mercury, SO4, NOx, etc.
The PRICE to consumers of this electricity might change, but the COSTS won’t.
These costs currently exist and they are being paid for even if we don’t readily see this. However we allow industries to externalize these costs onto downwind residents and other local and distant citizens and onto all taxpayers.
It’s only fair to remove the ability to externalize costs and provide for the users of a product to pay the costs of making that product available.
Posted March 6th, 2009 at 6:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The cost of generating electricity will not change if requirements are implemented to reduce emissions such as CO2, mercury, SO4, NOx, etc. The PRICE to consumers of this electricity might change, but the COSTS won’t.”
The cost will rise by the amount of the carbon tax and the price will rise to match it. And you are free to try and convince the consumers that they should pay that price. Good luck.
Posted March 7th, 2009 at 4:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Somebody doesn’t get the difference between COST and PRICE. Is anybody surprised?
Currently the PRICE of fossil fuel based energy and electricity generation is heavily subsidized and thus doesn’t reflect the true COST.
Because we allow these subsidies and other opportunities for externalizing COSTS this means that markets that respond to PRICES will fail.
Fixing the market, providing good information so customers can make informed decisions requires that PRICES accurately reflect COSTS.
Removing this difference between COST and PRICE is key. If it requires a tax or a cap on carbon to do this, then anyone who thinks free markets are good should support this.
Posted March 7th, 2009 at 4:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce, don’t patronize me. You aren’t that smart.
Cap and trade will raise the amount that power generators will pay for their generation. Do you deny that?
Power companies will pass on those costs to their customers.
Do you deny that?
Customers will pay more for their electricity. Maybe as much as 50% more per unit consumed.
Do you deny that?
Posted March 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “Bruce, don’t patronize me. You aren’t that smart.”
Then perhaps the individual should not patronize others, as some of us don’t consider him that “smart” either. Like many who have not the capacity to face reality, he constantly hides from simple questions, and becomes offended when asked to explain himself.
Bruce86 merely pointed out the distortion between real price and the cost which the customer pays. The difference is a subsidy to the producer, achieved either by reducing his taxes, or directly paying that company with disbursement from the public coffers. Whatever method is used, that is taking money from others to give to a corporation or other producer. That should be quite easy to understand, for even the simplest of minds.
Posted March 7th, 2009 at 4:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Don’t change the subject bullishfrog or I will continue to think you deserve being patronized.
Are you trying to argue that the current PRICE that utility customers pay reflects the FULL COSTS of generating or producing the energy?
Posted March 7th, 2009 at 5:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Laitres, you accuse me of not answering simple questions. But I posed three very simple questions and instead of answering them, you accuse me of having a simple mind.
Are you capable of dealing with the subject at hand? The discussion is related to whether consumers will accept the higher cost of electricity that cap and trade will deliver.
I asked Bruce these questions and I expect that he will answer them.
Are you able to answer these three simple questions?
Posted March 7th, 2009 at 5:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce, I did not change the subject. You did.
It doesn’t matter whether I believe the current cost of power to the consumer reflects the true cost of generation or not.
The issue that I raised, and you may want to go and read earlier posts, is whether consumers will accept the higher price that they will be charged for electricity.
I used the example of political aversion to raising gasoline prices because consumers will not accept that. I believe that the same logic follows with regard to a tax on electricity.
Posted March 7th, 2009 at 5:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “I asked Bruce these questions and I expect that he will answer them. Are you able to answer these three simple questions?”
What bruce86 pointed out was the difference between “cost to produce” and “price paid”, and absolutely nothing to do as to whether or not the consumer was willing to pay that price. That is another question entirely, and worthy of serious consideration on its own.
Now, while we are all subject to interpret things differently, depending upon our various backgrounds and beliefs, we should at least be able to recognize, and stick to the issue at hand (however narrow or broad). Otherwise, one is arguing one thing, and the other party another.
I know that I at times will myself drift, but those are my failures and my fault. At times I have totally misinterpreted the statement of another, and when I have, it is incumbent upon me to apologize. Should I fail to do so, that is another failure on my part.
Posted March 7th, 2009 at 5:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Laitres, I understand what Bruce is saying. But it does not address the issue we had been discussing. If neither you nor he want to discuss the issue of customer response to an increase in electric costs, that’s fine.
Posted March 7th, 2009 at 5:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “If neither you nor he want to discuss the issue of customer response to an increase in electric costs, that’s fine.”
There is no doubt that “cost” would go up. How much, I have neither the expertise nor even enough knowledge about the industry to make even the remotest of guesses as to what that would be. That I will leave to those who are much more familiar with the industry and what they would consider as not only cost of material and production facilities, but distribution and “hidden costs” as well.
But we do know that “subsidies” all too often distort real “cost” and, for those who would on one hand, promote what is often termed ‘liberal capitalism’, subsidies should be anathema. Yet, in some instances, it does not appear to be the case. Why the apparent disparity, I will let them tell us.
Posted March 7th, 2009 at 5:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, estimates that I have heard is that elecric costs will rise by 10 to 50% in regions where coal is used as a primary generating fuel. Regions, such as California, where coal is not used extensively, will not see much of an impact.
The administration acknowledges that an increase in electric bills will be forthcoming if the cap and trade bill passes.
Do you think consumers will accept such an increase which is being justified as the cost of reducing carbon emissions for the sake of alleviating the global warming conern? Or do you think that they will object to the increase in the same way that they object to higher gasoline taxes?
Posted March 7th, 2009 at 6:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “Do you think consumers will accept such an increase which is being justified as the cost of reducing carbon emissions for the sake of alleviating the global warming conern?”
Again, it is impossible for me to answer that question directly. But, acceptance of rejection is often the result of how the case is presented to the public, the same as it is to any individual.
The first thing I might do is first to verify whatever “costs” are presented to the public; i.e. anything and everything that goes into them, questioning everything. In that way, I am like Missouri, “Show me”, as well as “trust and verify.” No distortion and no fudging on anything. After that has been ascertained, I would present it to the public.
If presented as clear options and without any distortion of any type. It should be, I would submit as follows:
1) We appear to have a problem.
2) If we do this, it will cost us this much “right now.”
3) If we do nothing, we may be OK right now but, down the road, it will cost us, or future generations this much.
4) Now, what do you want to do?
A recent event might highlight one of the hidden costs of the policies we have been following. And while most individuals do not follow closely the area of foreign policy and foreign affairs, it is quite useful if one does so.
That this dependence on others has already begun to affect our national independence and foreign policy was recently illustrated during the visit of the current Secretary of State to China. Our current debt to them, and the need for further loans, forced her to not discuss issues that may have needed to be addressed. That should not be taken lightly, as it indicates our loss of freedom to operate with full independence as a nation.
Posted March 7th, 2009 at 6:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree that the presentation you suggest to the public will be necessary. The public will need to accept the explanation as sufficient to justify the increased consumer expense.
The same sort of explantion should be made with regard to gasoline taxes. Gasoline consumption goes even more to the issue you pose in your last paragraph than it does to coal and is the reason I would like to see an increase in gasoline taxes.
Posted March 7th, 2009 at 6:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: Gasoline consumption goes even more to the issue you pose in your last paragraph than it does to coal and is the reason I would like to see an increase in gasoline taxes.”
We may very well have to do that but, as you and I may be able to afford it, I often ask myself: What about those who can’t? That is a quandary which is endemic with matters of taxation and other public policy issues.
However, that said, it is also essential that we at times “bite the bullet” if we are to consider ourselves responsible citizens, not only for the present, but for the future and future generations. If we fail to do so, we will have earned the reputation we get as “poor stewards” of our inheritance.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.