In the hyperbolic political atmosphere of America today, left-leaning liberals are seen as tofu-eating, Toyota Prius-driving communists, while right-leaning conservatives are depicted as gun-toting, pickup-driving patriots. Thankfully, the real world is a lot more diverse than those caricatures.
Take George Shultz, for example. He served as both Labor and Treasury secretary for Richard Nixon and went on to become Secretary of State for the majority of Ronald Reagan’s two terms. Pretty solid conservative bona fides, we think.
And yet, he drives an electric car. A Nissan Leaf to be precise. On top of that, he generates his own electricity with a tidy little solar array…
Now, one might imagine his motivation for choosing clean energy and transportation has something to do with a strong dislike of mid-east oil. They would be correct. “I’m driving on sunshine. Take that, Ahmadinejad!”, he states in the video…
However, he is also concerned about the disastrous environmental effects our fossil fuel habit is causing. He supports a (gasp!) carbon tax as a way to combat the problem and his car and solar panels are his way of walking the talk…
Read the complete interview at the Stanford University site.
Using George Shultz and his opinions to show reasonableness only highlights the problem: he is out of date and old news===no longer relevant. The Pukes today are driven by Grover Norquist, Paul Ryan, and Rush Limbaugh to name three luminaries of the New Crackpot Right.
A truly dispicable bunch of Me First/Hate America xenophobes we have now.
Doesn’t bode well.
I apologize. Thats just what your own headline says.
Top skeptic Anthony Watts of http://wattsupwiththat.com/ also drives an electric car and has his house on solar power. So what’s the point?
The reality is that this push for MANDATING green energy largely leads to higher energy bills, triple what you are paying now. Let the technology develop and pay for itself.
And when they mandated in building codes that we switch from gas lamps to electric where were you for the right to install gas?
Why are you not bitching to return to it?
No you just do not want someone to tell you that you have to change. You want to sit stuck in your ways because your daddy did it and his daddy and his daddy.
Tradition of tradition’s sake.
Go sit down old man and watch Wheel of Fortune on your Curtis Mathis.
Cursor_
Huh? Most people have gas lines in their home right now. I suspect if it were a new technology, it could not get introduced, because it is a potential chance of explosion. I’m not aware of any building codes banning gas lamps, whatever those are. Most people went from candles, kerosene lanterns, and no light to electric bulbs. And of course that technology won on its own merit, and was not more expensive than the existing technology. OK, it is more expensive than having no light, which is how people justify cap and trade bills to say that it will save poor people money. They will spend less on energy because they will be forced to use less of it.
Yea, I am also opposed to the mandates to get rid of the traditional light bulb.
Kind of agree about the bulbs. Who wants to stick a very high priced temperature sensitive bulb in an outside socket where all a thief has to do is unscrew it and walk?
There are few mandates for TRUE green energy building. One amazingly inefficient aspect of nearly all homes built in the USA is the contractor putting the A/C unit in the attic with all the air distribution hoses.
This can cut efficiency by 25% in winter and in summer. Putting the systems in the cold zone is just plain bad engineering, but we continue to do it.
Carbon has nothing to do with global warming. This is proven over and over. Putting shit like sulphur and other dangerous crap in the air is definitly not good i agree to that. But the co2 hoax is just that, a hoax that they can tax at super-national level like the UN as everyone creates co2.
Bullshit is bullshit, whoever flings it.
Speaking of BS–how is it that the SCIENCE of co2 being a greenhouse gas turn out to be a hoax?
Science deniers. always a hoot.
It’s really very simple. People know they can make a lot of money spreading prophecies of doom. People that don’t do science and can’t tell when they are being scammed are now pretty much the norm. The simple phrase all scientists agree is a major clue that you are being lied to and to be frank what we know about weather/climate and can accurately modal is very limited. What is known beyond a shadow of doubt is even the short range modals used by most weather services are crap beyond days. What we know is that the climatologists can’t accurately predict events for any further than the weather forecasters.
The actual amount of green house effect that CO2 at current levels can cause directly has been proven to be trivial even if the theory is right and you need to remember the modals being used to make these predictions use a very overly simplified earth. A flat earth with an atmosphere reaching to the sun is not that real.
The theory for major effects was based on the assumption that the amount of water vapor being held in the air at higher altitudes would go up which according to satellite data from NASA isn’t happening. According to NASA satellite data sea level is going down.
The most likely explanation for what is going on with the climate is that the Sun still rules and nothing humans are doing is having much impact.
By the way out mild winter and hot summer seems to be directly tied to changes in the jet stream due to a long cooling phase in the Pacific. Of course everything is still tied back to whatever is going on with the sun.
do-ill = do you EVER take your head out of your ass?
“The simple phrase all scientists agree …” /// has NEVER been said except for Alfie Science Deniers like yourself to establish a strawman argument to knock down. Dishonest and stupid is what you are.
“The actual amount of green house effect that CO2 at current levels can cause directly has been proven to be trivial even if the theory is right and you need to remember the modals being used to make these predictions use a very overly simplified earth. A flat earth with an atmosphere reaching to the sun is not that real.” /// I assume you are referencing a specific review from somewhere. So==once again, the IPCC is just a huge conspiracy? Foolish. Easy to prove co2 is a greenhouse gas: just breath into a balloon and compare its temp to another balloon blown up by a bicycle pump. Now explain how that difference would NOT act in the open atmosphere. === and you can’t.
“The most likely explanation for what is going on with the climate is that the Sun still rules and nothing humans are doing is having much impact.” /// Abysmally STUPID!! Various solar and orbital cycles are taken into account. Pure FUD to say otherwise.
How high up your body will the ocean have to come before you admit to Ocean Rise?
Science Deniers. Idiots–and yet they can dress themselves and evidently afford computers.
You’re becoming more like Mr ConFusion. Try to read and UNDERSTAND what people are saying.
“The actual amount of green house effect that CO2 at current levels can cause directly has been proven to be trivial even if the theory is right” It’s not the existence of the greenhouse effect, but the amount of it.
NFS–I appreciate the subtlety of when what you say is actually the effect being noticed. But what you post reasonably in the abstract is NOT what the panel of qualified scientists reporting thru the IPCC says. The issue that you raise is EXACTLY what they study and have reported on. The Issue that you raise is EXACTLY summed up in the consistent ocean rise we see and the consistent with the series of record setting temperatures and drought/storm patterns we are seeing.
How high up your chest must the ocean rise before you admit the earth is warming?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
LOL, the wikipedia chart you link to doesn’t show consistent sea level rise. Even their three year average has a pretty big dip their in the 80s, and a smaller one recently.
A contradiction built in to the IPCC assessments. There are 3 parts, Working group 1 says CO2 will warm the atmosphere by X amount, Working Group 2 says warming the atmosphere by X will result in Y, and Working Group 3 says to prevent Y you must do Z.
Now here’s the problem, beyond that China and India and the rest of the developing world’s emissions growth makes all of the provided solutions moot.
The models assume very bad effects of warming, especially in the developing world. However, to get the high levels of warming, they have to assume a large amount of CO2 admitted, which is coming from the developing world. Now you can have economic growth without CO2 growth maybe, but you are not getting lots of CO2 growth without economic growth. So what the IPCC is saying is that the developing world is going to grow more than the USA did in the 1800s and 1900s, but the result will be a world that is as susceptible to damage as the current one.
The reality is that all that economic growth means the developing world will be able to adapt better than the IPCC is concluding.
Bobbo, the anti-theist, self proclaimed genius of the only science more complicated than Neurobiology or FTL, is nothing but a giant cave troll that CLEARLY never listens to No Agenda, reads opposing views past their title and yet frighteningly, somehow knows how to operate a computer.
Wow…. Just wow…….
Even uber-Libertarian Ron Paul said that he wasn’t sure if a human contribution to global warming existed, but it was our responsibility to ensure that the things that we do don’t contribute to the problem.
What an interesting position. Please cite the peer reviewed science journal you used to establish your opinion on the matter.
Even Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson acknowledges theres a problem.
http://drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_Misdiagnos_11.pdf
http://vimeo.com/8865909
http://skepticalscience.com/Dessler-2011-Debunks-Roy-Spencer-And-Richard-Lindzen.html
http://huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/richard-muller-global-warming_n_1066029.html
In the end science settles the debate, and will in this case too.
And I give you credit – you actually did some research instead of just parroting “carbon is bullshit”
Keep reading…
Haha, Roy Spencer had to correct Dessler 2011 for him.
http://drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/
Skeptical science is not an honest website, frequently attacking straw men arguments and not engaging the strongest arguments straightforwardly. Their use of the term ‘denier’ is a signal in itself, and then they go and object if people refer to them as SS. They also rewrite their posts without mentioning an update, which then makes the skeptic comments that they let through look bad.
http://bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/20/cooking-the-books.html
Dessler 2011 didn’t debunk Spencer and Lindzen, it merely responds to rebuts them.
Funny how now Reagan is seen as a beacon of moderation by liberals. George W Bush is getting there too.
By the way, is Romney one of those people who wouldn’t be invited into a Romney Administration? His administration in Massachusetts sued for the EPA to limit carbon dioxide, Mass v EPA, and he signed his state up to a regional greenhouse gas initiative that increased people’s energy bills. Only upside was that it turned the Kennedys into enemies of wind power since it would mar the view of their oceanfront compound.
Who properly fits the headline is Jim Holmes, who is a Tea Party guy in Colorado, and Romney Administration hates the Tea Party. This Jim Holmes was briefly said by ABC and George Stephanopoulos to be the guy who shot everyone at the Batman movie. Sadly, liberals prayers were not answered, and to date the Tea Party cannot be blamed for a mass shooting.
“ABC also issued an online apology: “ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.” And Ross said on-air: “An earlier report that I had was incorrect that he was connected with the Tea Party in fact that’s a different Jim Holmes. He was not connected to the Tea Party and what we do know about him is he is a 24-year-old white male who went to Colorado for a Ph.D.”
And I’m curious how they made a mistake like that. Jim Holmes is a pretty common name. Did they just naturally decide to search and see if he is connected to the Tea Party?
They are very good at avoiding mentioning when a suspect is black or Muslim, because they don’t want to stereotype. Here the intent was to deliberately stereotype Tea Party people, and may have even been the first instinct. Apologizing for identifying the wrong person isn’t good enough. Especially when you have a name that is so common, at least 1 in 100,000.
Hey, I’m no granola munching environmentalist either, but I do like electric cars. How better to sneak up on pedestrians.
BTW, weren’t carbon tax credits an offshoot of Milton Friedman’s idea?
Would the ignorant moron who is the web master of this site spen a little more time making it actually function instead of looking for useless liberal propaganda
Your site will not load in firefox it takes over 2 min to get the page to load. fix it
Loads in 15 secs for me. Firefox 3.6.18 with gigabit router. Faster and smoother than my old “g” class router that was breaking down after 5 years constant use.
It opens just fine for me.
Sometimes, when the site is being updated, it won’t load for a few minutes.
What do you want for free?
Im running firefox 14.01 and this has been going on for days ever since firefox updated but this is the only site that has trouble
Works fine, don’t like it use internet exploder.
cdn searchles.com
that is your hang up your hang up i believe it is some sort of a plug in for wordpress
check into it
When the Democrats become middle-of-the-road Republicans, the Republicans must go way off into the weeds to distinguish themselves from the Democrats.
Ha.
Time to understand that issues this guy and similar Left and Right are pushing are PROGRESSIVE. There are Progressives on the Right (Bush, McCain, Boehner,…) and those on the Left (Obama, Pelosi, Reid,…). What is common is a) opinion that Large Government is one that can solve all and that individual people are stupid b) opinion that we are World citizens first (Globalists) and that good of the many (as decided by Large Government) overrides individual freedoms of any kind.
These are NOT Right or Left issues. These are individual freedom vs. Collectivism issues. Person in question is Progressive Right. He might bring us to Fascism vs. current Administration who’d prefer Communism. But there is just a slim margin between the two. There more axis in politics than just Left and Right.
Hey Douche-Anal==please link to one quote from anyone at anytime and anywhere in History that has said that government can solve all problems.
We’ll call that square one.
Square two: name anyone at anytime and anywhere in american History that government can solve most problems.
How many steps until you are shown to be the complete fool we all already know you to be?
Course==you won’t establish any steps at all==because you are nuts.
Ha, ha. Stoopid Human.
lol bobbo, I don’t play the fanboy very often but that was eloquent and to the point.
Hey phydeau — you are no fanboy to simply recognize the truth of what is apparent: Not my cogent analysis, but the abysmal ignorance of Douche-Anal and the other Deniers of various ilks on this blog.
what cracks me up is these deniers all become entrenched in their ludicrous positions thru affirmation by the other nuts in their bunches.
They eschew lucid commentary going for the brown stain.
“♫..It ain’t me Babe….”
Fascists have commonly presented themselves as politically syncretic — opposing firm association with any section of the left-right spectrum, considering it inadequate to describe their beliefs, though fascism’s goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior has been noted as being a prominent far-right theme.
Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and the two major forms of socialism — communism and social democracy, and denounce them as representatives of sectarian interests rather than the community as a whole. To achieve its goals, the fascist state purges forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.
Fascism promotes political violence and war as forms of direct action that promote national rejuvenation, spirit and vitality. Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations to commit or threaten violence against their opponents.
So standing together is only good:
A) In time of war
B) In time of disaster
But if it means you have to work harder and spend come cash for the common welfare, then the team has an I i it.
Sit down, shut up you self-absorbed spoiled little child.
We are a republic because we are UNITED. Not because each person gets to do whatever the hell they please.
Your avarice is showing.
Cursor_
What if we ended up making the world a better place, and we found out we didn’t have to!
That’s great for him to be driving a LEAF, I support his choice. I just want Obama to leave me alone and let me continue to drive my gas guzzling ’95 Buick.
Yes, that was terrible when Obama personally came to your house and ripped the car keys right out of your hands…oh wait that never happened.
Driving a 95 Buick is its own punishment.
Cash for clunkers had a similar effect. Not only did they hand out money to people who could afford to buy a new car, they mandated the destruction of the old car. Used car prices are higher, and the parts are drying up for older vehicles.
Because that is “similar” to *not letting* Jason drive his 95 Buick…
Weaksauce.
No, this is the method this administration likes to use to push behavior modification. Cass Susstein is a major proponent. So instead of banning, push for calorie counts on restaurant menus. Increase costs of regular cars. And even there they have a future mandate of over 50MPG, so people wanting to drive cars like the 95 Buick will be stuck with no choice at that point.
American political parties differ in rhetoric but are the same in practice. Its just “go team go”.
Electric cars only sell because they are massively subsidized at all levels. The solar cells work well for him but they are massively subsidized. This dude is going to have to pay a mileage tax to make up for the gasoline taxes he isn’t paying. The range is still kind of limited. At most location the electric grid cannot support a change over to electric cars.
The bottom line is that we can run on electric if we have to but if we try to do it with the rest of world burning more coal (World wide coal use is way up.) we are pretty much going to finish bankrupting ourselves.
Congress was subsidizing Hummer H2 sales too, I’m not sure why other than as a perk to the wealthy.
Anything that is not privately owned and sold is socialism. The car is red because it’s a commie, socialist car.
Republicans and not RINOs need to be elected this November to fix our economy.
Romney is the best candidate, who like C. Montgomery Burns, will use tax payers money and build a giant, movable disk that will permanently block out the sun.
This great American innovation will both cool the earth for free, slowing global warming and force Americans to buy coal powered electricity from tax paying power plants like G.E.
Yawn!
bedtime for
bonzopedro!California is looking to put GPS monitoring of all cars to tax based on miles driven. Don’t worry, the information collection is not a violation of your privacy.
If you’re driving an electric car to the golf course, you’re either willfully ignorant or a complete farking dumbass. Either way you’re doing it wrong. How many people live in that home with its massive footprint? Baby steps are good but this is nothing more. Baby steps.
I would like to install solar panels on my house, but the Architectural Committee of my Homeowner’s Association bans all solar panels because they believe it detracts from the beauty of the neighborhood.