The Attorney General From East Anglia

Lots of observers were skittish with the election victory in November of Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, a staunch social conservative unafraid to rattle cages. The Washington Post editorialized that he might prove an “embarrassment” for Virginia as did The Virginian-Pilot. More conservative editorial writers were delighted with him.
Well, it hasn’t taken long. Straying a long ways from the typical confines of the Old Dominion, Cuccinelli has filed a petition against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which after a decades-worth of study, has declared that six greenhouse gases coming from factories, cars and big electric plants pose a threat to the ecosystem and the public health.
Of course, most of the world has little trouble with this and many governments have made such declarations. There are plenty of supporting scientific studies which would be the basis of some kind of international effort to curb greenhouse gases which have been found to promote global warming.
Even big U.S. corporations such as power-generators Dominion, Duke Energy, and Excelon support some type of “cap and trade” restrictions because they (1) realize the scientific problems and reasons behind warming; (2) they want to avoid future lawsuits by shareholders and environmentalists armed with a preponderance of data about the human factor in global warming and (3) they might be able to do just as well, if not better, profit-wise by turning to newer types of technology that are more eco-friendly and less reliant upon dwindling global supplies of polluting hydrocarbons.
So much for being long-sighted. A core element in the right wing wonk movement (CATO, A.E.I. The Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, which publishes a another version of Bacon’s Rebellion that is tightly censored for ideological purity), wants to diss global warming as much as it can. To discredit attempts to regulate greenhouse gases, it wants to pretend that human activity has nothing to do with such gases.
This is where Cuccinelli comes in. Not only has he filed a petition against the EPA, he cites among his reasons for doing so, a mini-scandal at the U.K.’s University of East Anglia which last year suffered a kind of mini-Watergate that involved computer hacking and e-mails supposedly casting doubt about the scientific veracity of global warming. This is because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nation’s body supplying supporting data on global warming, makes big use of the East Anglia school, even though there are many other sources as well.
Anti-warming ideologues such as Cuccinelli have leaped on the scandal as some kind of conclusive evidence that global warming is false. Whatever.
Maybe someone should give Cuccinelli a world map and a copy of the U.S. Constitution. The last time I checked, The University of East Anglia is in the County of Norfolk, England, not the City of Norfolk, Va., in the U.S. Unfortunately, Cuccinelli’s legal venue does not extend to the County of Norfolk (although it does the City of Norfolk, Va.). Also, Cuccinelli’s legal authority does not extend to the EPA , which is a federal, not state, agency.
Trying to make his case, Cuccinelli says that he is, by training, an engineer along with a lawyer, and that he knows that any reputable scientific findings must be verifiable by independent testing. True enough, but keep in mind that Cuccinelli is a mechanical, and not an environmental, engineer. In other words, he would have more credibility if he were talking about industrial processes or copying machines than the global environment.
Of course, Cuccinelli’s play is purely political, not to mention ideological . It is part of grand strategy of the right wing arm of the GOP to promote a bunch of mini revolts at the state and local levels to raise awareness of pet projects such as dissing global warming, arming citizens to the eye-teeth and banning abortions. The targets are elections later this year and of course, beating Barack Obama in 2012.
Cuccinelli’s ploy already has won praise from The Washington Times, the faltering Moonie newspaper that says Cuccinelli is “spot on.” But you have to worry that the other Washington newspaper might have it right — that Cuccinelli’s anti-global warming, anti-federal tantrum is an embarrassing sideshow for the citizens of the Old Dominion.
It isn’t as if Virginia doesn’t have other more serious problems, such as jobs. So far the state’s GOP leadership has presented us with a weak mish-mash of jobs bills while screwing around with Cuccinelli’s petition and laws that that make it OK to bring a loaded handgun into a bar.
Rumor is that even Gov. Bob McDonnell is trying to keep Cuccinelli on a shorter leash. But all of this makes Virginia look like some Southern backwater rather than a worthy player on the global scene.
Peter Galuszka

Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

65 responses to “The Attorney General From East Anglia”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    I don't think that dissing global warming theory is a very useful or productive political strategy.

    Yes, there are certainly some errors in the historical data.

    Yes, there are some scientists with various kinds of dissent, but mostly these are people who think they have an idea to make the predctions better, not different.

    There is some slight possibility that the dissers are correct, but, using their own arguments against global warming studies, it will take decades to find out if they are right or wrong.

    They have less than a 50/50 chance of being correct and they have to prove themselves hypocrites to win.

    What they ought to be focusing on is how to get some greenhouse gas production at lowest cost. greenhouse gas producton is likely to present us with huge human, social, political, and economic costs.

    So is prevention of greenhouse gas. I don't believe for a second that we can reduce all of combustion by 25 to 75% without serious repercussions. Certainly not in 20 or 30 years. Neither can we capture all the byproducts of combustion without using much of the energy combustion provides.

    Those who are opposed to the control of greenhouse gasses need to arm themselves with irrefutable evidence of the costs of control. All of the costs including the externalities. in order to do that they need to get behind greenhouse gas legislation so that they can get the proper accounting rules built into the legislation, along with provisions for periodic review so that the legislation can be turned off if it turns out to be unnecessary.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar

    "True enough, but keep in mind that Cuccinelli is a mechanical, and not an environmental, engineer. In other words, he would have more credibility if he were talking about industrial processes or copying machines than the global environment."

    ——————————

    Come on, give the guy a break.

    The core engineering competencies are all the same. Everyone takes physics, chemistry, math, thermo, mechanics, electronics, and systems or problem solving. Then you specialize and Cucinelli wound up specializing in law.

    I'll take a guy who is cross trained, anytime, over a narrow specialist.

    It isn't that he is not capable of understanding the science of global warming. He has chosen to disbelieve it because it conflicts with other preconcieved notions and core values.

    I wrote about this tendency in a previous post. Experiments have been done on this topic, and it turns out that it would not matter if the evidence was pro global wrarming or anti-global warming, Cucinelli would be against the evidence or disbeleive it EITHER WAY, if it is presented in a way that conflicts with his prior beliefs.

    No amount of truth will ever sway him as long as that is the case.

    Being cross-trained, it turns out, is a good thing, but it is not sufficient. You also need an open mind.

    RH

  3. well there are issues as they say.

    Bush and his loving supporters like this guy first claimed (and may still) that the EPA does not have the legal right to make a determination that greenhouse gases be CONSIDERED for potential regulation.

    Let's stipulate that we do not know conclusively.. that we're acting without absolute certainty much like we did with cigarettes since an actually study involving human subjects would be highly unethical so we indeed did act without absolute certainty…

    I simply question the economic argument that attempting to control green house gases will hurt the economy by expending money on something that has no clear and accepted ROI.

    All I would ask is what criteria do we use when we expend billions of dollars on Humvees, body armor and prosthesis for 20 year olds.

    Do we expect an ROI on that?

    If we can spend spend money on this "cause" then tell me again why we cannot for other "causes" that some view as just a big a threat as what we expend money for our military causes?

    How come we have to have absolute certainty to expend money on global warming but not our anti-terrorism and war fighting efforts?

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    I don't know what to believe about global warming. I do believe that any cap & trade program would likely manipulated by Wall Street.

    I suspect many NoVA residents would support efforts to use energy more efficiently and to reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy. But I think many, if not, the majority of NoVA residents would be skeptical of the global warming crowd — at least to the extent of believing they were were looking for funding, political power, etc. more than they were trying to solve a problem.

    I went to a political meeting in Falls Church earlier this year. I'd guess that the attendees were more to the center-left than to the right. A discussion of global warming came up. Its proponents were clearly out-numbered.

    While I don't subscribe to all of the Attorney General's views, anything that upsets Fred Hiatt and the rest of the editorial staff at the WaPo is probably good for Virginia. The WaPo has a number of smart and good people, but Hiatt and company aren't part of that club.

    TMT

  5. but you don't think Wall Street manipulates the public's attitude to the need to spend gobs and gobs of money on Homeland Security and Humvees and prosthetic limbs for 20 year-olds?

    I'm just asking.

    The companies that makes profits selling Prescription Drugs for govt-subsidized Medicare Part D recipients ???

    I'm stipulate for the sake of argument that we don't know what the beneficial impacts of reduced energy consumption would have or not have with respect to pollution and global warming but given what we know and don't know about our huge expenditures of money for never ending war fighting.. why is that any better/different than spending money on domestic things no better or worse in ROI that the military costs?

    It just seems to me that we're more than willing to question the use of monies to head off global warming but we have absolutely no problems spending just as much money on the cause of Nation Building.

    I don't think we even have a rational strategic philosophy in general..with regard to real or perceived threats to us.

    If you say there is a bomb-wielding Arab in the closet we freak… if we say that the earth might succumb to Global Warming .. we blow it off.

    Clearly the terrorists are a bigger threat..right?

  6. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    TMT,
    I knew Fred Hiatt from Moscow. He's not an evil person.
    Peter Galuszka

  7. Anonymous Avatar

    All I would ask is what criteria do we use when we expend billions of dollars on Humvees, body armor and prosthesis for 20 year olds.

    Do we expect an ROI on that?

    =================================

    Of coure we do. We may not do it very well. We may only get the answer afterward, and even then we may not go back and look, but there WILL BE and ROI for every expenditure.

    You may as well have some idea what it is up front.

    Generals do that all the time. I recall reading a story about the campaign in Africa, before El Alamein when when Patton asked Montgomery "How many tanks is this going to cost me?"

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar

    "I do believe that any cap & trade program would likely manipulated by Wall Street."

    ================================

    You gotta love conspiracy theorists. there is no defense against such arguments. Sure, those allotments will be trded SOMEPLACE, whether it is wall street or not.

    Wherever it happens, the buyers and sellers will be working for their own best interests, othwerwise known as "manipulating the market"

    Suppose that the allotments are restricte to sale directly to other polluters: no outside speculators involved.

    From Wall streets perspective, those rights will be assets on the balance sheet, just lke any other property, and it will affect the prices they pay for the stock of the companies that own them.

    But without speculators in the market it will be harder for one company to locate another to sell to. Not to mention that merely offering a sale might disclose trade secrets.

    You CAN GET a similar result with a simple tax on emissions, but you do not get any feedback as to whether the tax is set at an efficient level, which a trading scheme does offer.

    Using market forces is one of the best ways to get the most environmental protection per dollar spent, even if yu believe that the markets are imperfect.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    RH,
    Hate to be a pest, but didn't Montgomery do EL Alamein before Patton even got to Africa?
    PG

  10. Anonymous Avatar

    "…we have absolutely no problems spending just as much money on the cause of Nation Building."

    ================================

    We don't even have an agreed upon procedure for cranking out the ROIs.

    If we had the procedure to produce ROIs, some people would argue that we cannot use them, either because they are immoral, or because they don't agree with either the procedure or the result.

    But, if you did have them the result would be a number, which you could compare to anyother number without any knowledge of what activities are behind the number: it does not matter if you are buying humvees or cleaning up the Redstone River. The ROI will suggest to you that one is a better deal than another, but it informs your decision as to what to do in the end, it does not make the decision.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    Hate to be a pest, but didn't Montgomery do EL Alamein before Patton even got to Africa?

    I dunno, I might have recalled the story wrong. Later battle maybe?

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    If you say there is a bomb-wielding Arab in the closet we freak… if we say that the earth might succumb to Global Warming .. we blow it off.

    Clearly the terrorists are a bigger threat..right?

    ================================

    If you offer ten people $100 today or $200 in two weeks, most of them will take $100 today.

    Makes no sense, but there it is.

    But if you offer them $100 five years from now vs $200 six years from now, they will take the $200.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    Peter – Fred Hiatt is Satan in my eyes. He's a one-dimensional nag for higher taxes on Virginians and chooses to ignore facts and fairness. Case one: the 2004 Warner-Chichester tax increases were touted by Hiatt constantly. Yet, those taxes cost his Fairfax County readers $107 million plus the first year, while Fairfax County Public Schools received a mere $7 million plus change in brand new revenues. Moreover, the very next fiscal year (i.e., school year), 49 cities and counties were able to reduce their local tax support for public schools. Hiatt's beloved tax increases screwed many of the WaPo's readers.

    Case two: Hiatt has been champing at the bit for higher gas taxes – in part, because of maintenance needs for roads and bridges. Yet, he ignores the UVA study that showed, in 2007, drivers paid a subsidy of more than $200 million (about one-fifth of VDOT's entire maintenance budget) to repair damages to bridges and roads caused by overweight trucks. (This was highlighted in Baconsrebellion.) Yet, where's Hiatt on this issue? Silent!

    Even some of those who want to raise the gas tax, e.g., Senator Janet Howell, are working to end the $200 million taxpayer rip-off. But where's Hiatt? Supporting continuation of the subsidy.

    I don't like people unfairly attacking the residents of Fairfax County to fuel their own egos or perversions. Hiatt is so ideological that he'd gladly see unfairness so long as taxes are raised. In my eyes, he's not much different than Vidkud Quisling.

    Ray, I'm not against speculation, but strongly opposed to market manipulation. I'm not alone. The SEC just adopted more restrictive rules on short-selling to prevent manipulation.

    How much support would there be for cap and trade if the only companies that could buy or sell credits were companies generating carbon emissions? Keep Wall Street away from the process.

    TMT

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    "How much support would there be for cap and trade if the only companies that could buy or sell credits were companies generating carbon emissions?"

    ———————————

    Huh?

    They are the only companies that NEED credits. In the end they will be the only ones buying and using credits.

    Some speculator or banker may be sitting on the paper for a while, but it is no good to him. Sooner or later he has to sell it to a user.

    If we keep it off of Wall street, Where will we trade? London? St Louis? Charlotte?

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar

    Let any carbon credits be traded at the EPA or the Department of Energy. The FCC has successfully operated many auctions for radio licenses. Another federal agency could handle the trading of carbon credits.

    TMT

  16. Anonymous Avatar

    I saw that too. Wonder why they picked on shorts though, doesn't that make or assume (depending on you viewpoint) that prices are going down?

    If market manipulation is the proeblem then the proposed answer is not to allow any single speculator to own more than some percentage of the total product being traded. I think this is in the works, too.

    But the real problem in the latest crash was unsupported derivatives. these were derivatives of derivatives, and no one had to actually pick up a product if a contract failed. There was no product, it was invented and the "price" depended on a model.

    Thee was no final connection to the real world where someone consumes the stuff.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar

    Let any carbon credits be traded at the EPA or the Department of Energy. The FCC has successfully operated many auctions for radio licenses. Another federal agency could handle the trading of carbon credits.

    ============================

    That works for me.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar

    Do we expect an ROI on that?

    ==============================

    " it’s worth a little of our time and brain cells to figure out just what the [Social Cost of Carbon] means and why we should care.

    The dollar figure put on the SCC will determine just how much regulation actually takes place. The EPA will look, in traditional cost-benefit-analysis style, at the cost of complying with a regulation in comparison to the SCC. If complying with the regulation costs more per ton than the SCC, the EPA won’t require it. If it costs less, it will. A high SCC means lots of regulations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (think: higher fuel-efficiency requirements on cars, tighter emissions requirements for power plants). A low SCC means little or no regulation.

    The EPA’s method of calculating the SCC is troubling and, perhaps, the subject of another blog posting. Suffice it to say, the figure is fairly arbitrary, based on a bunch of value judgments that need a lot closer examination by a wider public."

    Public Goods blog.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar

    "Every $1 per ton of CO2 is about a penny per gallon of gasoline, so $5 per ton would be a trivial price incentive of 5 cents a gallon. At $50 per ton, or 50 cents a gallon, you’d start to notice. An increase of $500 per ton, or $5 per gallon, would put us in the realm of gas prices in many European countries where people buy smaller cars and use public transportation a lot more than we do."

    If you like the gas tax, you are going to love this one.

    RH

  20. Anonymous Avatar

    Peter said:

    “TMT,

    “I knew Fred Hiatt from Moscow. He's not an evil person.”

    I know Fred from his WaPo days before he went to Moscow. Based on direct personal experience his journalist integrity can not be trusted any farther than you can throw him.

    Later TMT said:

    “Peter – Fred Hiatt is Satan in my eyes. He's a one-dimensional nag for higher taxes on Virginians and chooses to ignore facts and fairness.”

    Sorry, TMT, Fred is not Satin. Fred works for an enterprise that owns the newspaper. If he takes a different position on taxes or anything else that may damage the enterprise’s bottom line, he loses his job.

    It is not about bad guys – journalistic integrity or no – it is about who pays the bills.

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    Peter – Let's agree to disagree on Hiatt.

    TMT

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    I had an experience that was similar to the one Anon 6:03 had with Freddie Hiatt in his pre Editor days.

    But what galls me in this string is this by RH:

    “It isn't that he is not capable of understanding the science of global warming. He has chosen to disbelieve it because it conflicts with other preconceive notions and core values.”

    “… it would not matter if the evidence was pro ……… or anti- …………… Cucinelli would be against the evidence or disbelieve it EITHER WAY, if it is presented in a way that conflicts with his prior beliefs.”

    From all the public evidence, RH is right about Cucinelli but why can RH recognize this trait in others but not himself?

    A former poster on this Blog has spent 40 years developing a set of principles and theses that many of us believe are critically important and RH gleefully attacks the poor old fellow because he wants to develop his wife’s families hay field.

    Fair Trader

  23. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    "There was no final connection to the real world where someone consumes the stuff."

    Sure there was. It's called bank reserves and the ability to make loans. When the wheels fell off and the margin calls started, derivatives became all too real. Just ask the Wall Street bankers and the American people.

  24. Anonymous Avatar

    You know whaqt I mean. No real commodity was ever delivered, and that is what anchors the speculative price to the real world. Speculators have to settle their contract evey day, based on actual prices.

    If thereis no actual price but a model……..

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar

    " RH gleefully attacks the poor old fellow because he wants to develop his wife’s families hay field."

    =================================

    Not the case at all. That is a vicious lie.

    I don't care one way or another, as long as I (she) gets a fair shake.

    The actual situation is that a whole bunch of other people want to make sure that the hay fields stay as hay fields, or at least that they do not become homes.

    But those people are willing to do nothing to support the cost of maintaining hay fields. They get what they want for nothing.
    But I pay far more taxes than the average homeowner in Fauquier. I work every weekend and most evenings all summer, and the farm drops a substatntial amount of money on the local economy every year, in addition to the taxes.

    The farm pays the tractor dealer, the parts guy, the fuel guy, the co-op, the hired help,registration and expenses onthe trucks and manyother things.

    When it is all done, I'm lucky to break even on operations. I'm one of the last operators in my area, and I'm getting old.

    Wealthy Fauquier farms prefer to buy their hay shipped in from Pennsylvania, or even Alberta, for reasons of quality. For Crops in Virginia you can expect net returns of from around $2 per acre to a high of $20 per acre.

    The county openly claims that they save money on every home that is not built: last I knew that claim was $2700 per home. On interest alone, the county is saving 30 times as much per my acre as I am making from working it. They are saving money at my expense and giving me nothing, nada, zero in return.

    I don't call that a fair shake. I don't think it is a fair shake if the county takes taxes paid on agricultural land and spends it on urban services. I don't think it is fair that my wifes property has been devalued and devalued and devalued and devalued yet again, for reasons that some "poor old fellow" thinks are critically important.

    I'm a scientist and a conservationist: I know what is critically important. But if we think those things are that important then we ought to be willing to pay a fair price for them.

    The evidence is right in front of that "poor old fellow" and he can't or won't see it because it is jarring to his preconceived notions. I can never confuse him with facts, because his mind is made up. He has an agenda that he is trying to sell, and he has become a master at meaningless statistics and empty sentences in the process.

    When I pull the dipstick and ther is no oil, i accept that as fact and do something about it. I don't try to convince myself that the zentrum of that old engine is in good shape whne it is falling apart.

    I have nothing to sell, except the simple idea of fairness and equality. The sooner that "poor old fellow" and his self-righteuos environmental cronies understand that what they want must be paid for, then the will have stumbled on the one thing that is critically important: fairness, honesty, and integrity in dealing with your neighbors.

    As it stands now, I'm the onepaying for all the stuff "that poor old fellow" thinks is critically important. I could do a lot more with the time and the resources but in allthe 20 yeaqrs I have done this not one person who thinks this is critically important has done one single thing to further that objective.

    Pardon me if a I'm a little cynical about their motives.

    RH

  26. Anonymous Avatar

    From all the public evidence, RH is right about Cucinelli but why can RH recognize this trait in others but not himself?

    =================================

    It is not about Cucinelli.
    This is a common trait among people that can be observed experimentally. It is one of those things you study in experimental design.

    "Confirmation bias is a tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true.

    People can reinforce their existing attitudes by selectively collecting new evidence, by interpreting evidence in a biased way or by selectively recalling information from memory."

    I believe that "poor old gentleman" has perfected this practice to the point of pathology.

    Certainly I have the trait myself, but as a scientist and one who depends on close observation for my livliehood, I try to suppress it. i deliberately look for the contradiction rather than the confirmation. So, If Cucinelli ever says to me that man is not responible for changing the environment, I'm likely to ask him what happened to the passenger pigeons.

    Lets face it, this is a partisan blog, and it has a rather lopsided truth density. It is not that I gleefully attack that old gentleman: I could care less about him or insults directed at me personally.

    What I have done here is deliberately presented evidence, (none of it MY evidence), and ideas, (none of them MY ideas) that suggest there may be some other way to look at things other than to blame EVERYTHING on settlement patterns.

    EMR and the Shades seem to have a problem with that, which they childishly take out on me personally. He has been working on this for forty years, if he can't take a few illiterate, uneducated jabs from me, then maybe his theory could use a little work.

    My political bias is equality of opportunity – and of obligation, but that says nothing about equality of result. Given equality of opportunity and of obligation, I don't care if someone pulls off a "windfall profit". I figure he earned it according to the rules.

    If you are agitating for equality you may be arguing in either direction, and that makes it awfully hard to have a confirmation bias.

    There are scientists outthere who are deliberately hoping and casmpaigning for a situation that sets a high value on the Social Costs of Carbon. Cucinelli is arguing for a low value (zero).

    Both approaches are equally crazy and both will result in waste and costs that are higher than necessary. Consequently my "confirmation bias" is against both of them.

    You probably won;t believe that because it violates your prconcieved notion of me as an avaricious, dangerous, and illiterate lunatic.

    RH

  27. Some energy "fun facts":

    1. The US utility industry, in 2009, produced 3.7 Trillion KWHrs of electricity. Of that, 50% was generated from coal and 0.1% was solar.

    2. The US consumes 3.3 billion gallons of gasoline annually. 8% from renewables (mostly ethanol).

    3. Obama has publicly stated that he wants to see 1M plug in electric vehicles in use in America by 2015.

    4. The next two generations of nuclear power generation are called Generation 3+ and Generation IV. 3+ consumes more of the nuclear fuel and, therefore, creates less waste. Generation IV can run on recycled nuclear fuel from older types of generators.

    5. $18.5B of federal loan guarantees for nuclear power plant generation have been authorized. The first $8.3B was recently approved. Obama says he'd like to see a total of $54B in loan guarantees.

    6. The new nuclear generators will bring 10,000 new megawatts online by 2020. That's a 10% increase in electricity generated by nuclear power and 1% of projected total US power needs.

    7. 150 companies are currently working to make algeal biofuel.

    8. The US government has spent $44M on support for algae biofuel research and $97M for algae biofuel pilots.

    9. The American electric Power Co (AEP) was awarded $344M in stimulus funds to build a carbon capture demonstration plant (235MW). The Mountaineer Plant in WVA will be in pilot mode by 2015.

    10. AEP's carbon capture plant doubles the price of electricity and reduces plant efficiency by 30%.

    11. The price of carbon (in a cap and trade scheme) would have to be $50 / ton before the carbon capture apporach used by AEP would be economically feasible.

    12. Wind produced 73B KWHrs of electricity in the US in 2009. That's 2% of the US energy total or enough electricity to power 13M homes.

    13. Wind capacity increased 39% last year over the year before. That's an additional 10,000MW.

    14. Wind could meet 20% of America's energy needs by 2030. That's 300GW.

    15. Significant wind generation will require significant new transmission lines to carry the electricity from the point of generation to the grid.

    16. Offshore wind could produce 17% of the 2030 total. However, offshore wind is twice as expensive to build as onshore wind.

    17. Solar costs $.25 – $.46 per KWhr (residential), $.17 – $.29 KWHr (commercial). Coal costs $.07, natural gas costs $.07, Wind costs $.10.

    18. The added cost of a Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehical (PHEV) will only be economically justified if gas > $6 / gal.

    19. A 120 volt outlet will charge an all electric vehicle in 12 – 24 hours, a 240 volt outlet will charge the same car in 3 – 6 hours.

    20. 5% of US electric meters are smart meters today.

  28. additional fun facts about nuclear.

    the cost of financing loans for nuclear plants has to be subsidized by the US Govt.

    No insurance company will insure a Nuclear plant so the govt has capped their liability.

    No nuclear operator includes the longer term sequestration costs of the waste fuel.

    I'm still a supporter of Nuclear Power but I do have to ask – if it has to be subsidized and solar/wind has to be subsidized … what's the real difference?

    Waste Storage is the answer.

    At some point, we will decide that the pollution costs of a given energy source are just as relevant as these other factors.

    Finally – what's the difference between taxpayers paying for wind turbines and solar – or Humvees in terms of long term benefits to the country?

  29. Anonymous Avatar

    "Generation IV. 3+ consumes more of the nuclear fuel and, therefore, creates less waste. Generation IV can run on recycled nuclear fuel from older types of generators."

    Efficiency is a good thing, but it has limits and it does not mean that you will use less energy. In fact studies have shown that people who buy energy efficient light bulbs tend to leave the lights on more, which is exactly what the theory would predict.

    You still need to plan on a society that willuse more energy, not less.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar

    "I'm still a supporter of Nuclear Power but I do have to ask – if it has to be subsidized and solar/wind has to be subsidized … what's the real difference?"

    Precisely.

    And while you are at it youmay as well include coal and the costs of the damages it causes as a hidden subsidy, too.

    And then ask what is the difference. The answer is going to come out in dollars, so we may as well do the best job we can of answering that question cvorrectly, because if we don't get it right we are going to pay the difference as some other kind of externality.

    It is tempting to believe that clear, transparent, free, renewable wind power has few or no externalities compared to poisonous nuclear power and waste we have to stand gurad over for 20,000 years.

    The pollution and other externalities are
    EXACTLY
    as relevent as other factors, but some people would have us believe that they are more relevant, and that is a mistake.

    We just need to list all the things that hasve a big enough contribution to consider, and consider all of them on an equal, unbiased basis, without salmming any group for alleged conspiracy.

    RH

  31. using RH logic on energy use, the folks who buy fuel efficient cars will drive more.

    The "theory" that Ray cites has no practical examples.

    If Ray's theory was true, the average per capita use of energy would be going up every year.

    and it's going down.. in many places like California where it has gotten more expensive which is a "theory" that does work.

    If you double the price of electricity do you think people would use more ….or less?

    Well in California, New York and Europe – they use LESS.

    and the way they use LESS is by getting more efficient appliances like fluorescents, tankless water heaters and not heating unoccupied rooms.

    People don't buy more efficient cars and appliances to save energy. They buy them to save money spent on energy.

    The GROWTH of energy use comes from places where the population is growing and people who did not have it before now have it.

    Places like China and India.

    China IS building more COAL AND more Nukes – BOTH – not because individuals who already have access to electricity are using more but because because he didn't have it are now using it.

    If you want to limit electricity usage, we already know how to do that – just double or triple the price of it and people will use much less of it.

    When you get that $500 monthly electric bill.. most folks do something about it and afterwards.. they use LESS electricity, not more.

    Ray lives in an alternate universe sometimes.

  32. Many on this blog believe that many problems, including environmental issues, are caused by dysfunctional human settlement patterns. There is also a belief that "scatterization" of dwellings is a symptom of dysfunctional human settlement patterns.

    It seems that the Mayor of Detroit agrees. In a very painful and difficult decision he is recommending that whole areas of the city be de-populated so that he can concentrate the remaining residents in more concentrated areas. He says that he can't afford to provide adequate services to the entire 139 sq mi city. He also cites the location of new schools as a reason to relocate citizens in more concentrated areas of the city.

    This is roughly the same approach taken by the Mayor of Youngstown, OH.

    These will not be the last localities which have to deal with shrinking populations and lowered tax receipts and budgets.

    I wonder if EMR has a prescription for rebuilding a city with a shrinking population in a more functional manner?

    http://www.detnews.com/article/20100225/METRO01/2250391/Detroit-Mayor-Bing-emphasizes-need-to-shrink-city

  33. In fact, one would think the antidote to scatterization would be abandonment of dysfunctional settlement patterns – no matter the reason.. whether they once were dense and got de-populated or they never go dense enough.

    EMR presumes that "enough" jobs will alway be a built-in component of functional settlement patterns but Detroit as well as Southwest Va have clearly proven that jobs can and do go away and the remaining settlement pattern that once might have been functional is no longer or less so.

    At the end of the day – does govt have a legitimate role in "planning" functional settlement patterns?

    When a pvt sector company… or for that matter an entire private sector industry leaves – is there any benefit to the govt doing what Detroit is doing?

    What would be an equivalent for South Western Va?

    You might can "shrink" the boundaries of Detroit but how do you "shrink" the boundaries of the dozens of towns in SW Virginia that no longer have a manufacturing base?

  34. Anonymous Avatar

    "using RH logic on energy use, the folks who buy fuel efficient cars will drive more."

    It isn't my logic and there is factual data to prove the point.

    I drive a highly efficent car, but for myself I do not drive it more just because it is more efficient.

    What is true is that it makes trips efficient that might not be in another vehicle, and that leads to more trips.

    If I can save $20 on a part by going to Winchester instead of Warrenton, that $20 is enough to drive an extra 15 minutes in my car but not in my heavy truck.

    So my choice is do without, shut down the job I'm working on, and do the next job on the priority list until I have enough purchases to make the trip to Winchester worthwhile.

    Buy the part locally at a higher price.

    Or go to Winchester on the cheap in my efficient vehicle and get on with my job.

    Having a more efficient vehicle does not make you drie more, but it does make more trips "profitable" which means more trips will be made.

    I'm just pointing out what happens. You can believe it or not, but it is still going to happen. My logic has nothing to do with it.

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar

    The "theory" that Ray cites has no practical examples.

    —————————-

    It not only has practical examples, there is experimental data to back it up, plus real world operating history.

    RH

  36. " What is true is that it makes trips efficient that might not be in another vehicle, and that leads to more trips"

    If what you said was true… then the more efficient cars got – the more miles people would put on their cars and the opposite is happening actually.

    You say facts. Provide the facts that show increase in per capita miles as a factor of increased fuel efficiency.

    Most people buy more fuel efficient cars to save money especially if the cost of energy goes up – like $4 a gallon gas.

    And indeed..that is exactly what happened when gasoline went to $4 a gallon.

    According to you.. they bought more efficient cars and then ended up driving more even though gasoline got more expensive.

    more bizarro logic guy.

  37. Anonymous Avatar

    "If Ray's theory was true, the average per capita use of energy would be going up every year."

    ——————————

    What has efficiency got to do with price?

    I can put in an oil burner that is 15% more efficient, but if the price of oil goes up 25%, my budget means I'll STILL have to cut usage by an additional 10%.

    My use of BTU's will go down.

    And so does my standard of living, because now I'm 10% less comfortable.

    Plus I still have to pay for the new oil burner.

    RH

  38. did you use LESS energy when the price went up and you got a more efficient furnace?

    why do you say that more efficiency results in more use then?

  39. if the price does not go up but you put in a more efficient furnace… don't you do that to save money and you save money by using less?

    you don't put in a more efficient unit then crank the thermostat to 85 do you?

  40. Anonymous Avatar

    and the way they use LESS is by getting more efficient appliances like fluorescents, tankless water heaters and not heating unoccupied rooms.

    ——————————-

    That is part of it. If we could make stuff that is 100% efficient we wouldn't need any energy, but that isn't possible. There is a limit to what you can gain by efficiency.

    ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, if you make gains in efficiency, you can convert some of those gains into profitability, which means you will use more energy, not less, even though you are using it more efficiently.

    But now you want to change the argument in typical Larry fashion, pecking randomly at the ground, and claiming victory over every seed you find.

    If you back up a couple of steps and look at the whole problem in a uniform way you will see that I am not the one living in a parallel universe.

    Europeans use less energy per capita, they produce less GDP per capita, and they have a lesser standard of living. If Americans "enjoyed" the same standard of living as Europeans, we would use even less energy than they do.

    You can argue against an idea, but you cannot argue against the measurable facts.

    rh

  41. Anonymous Avatar

    People don't buy more efficient cars and appliances to save energy. They buy them to save money spent on energy.

    ==============================

    They also buy them so that they can enjoy more benefits for the same money spent on energy.

    People who buy efficient light bulbs tend to use them 10% more than the bulbs they had before.

    RH

  42. "you can convert some of those gains into profitability, which means you will use more energy"

    you have not demonstrated that and you weasel by using the phrase "can convert".

    " Europeans use less energy per capita, they produce less GDP per capita, and they have a lesser standard of living."

    productivity is DEFINED by producing MORE with LESS.

    but you say that folks in Europe that are more energy efficient will use MORE energy and yet STILL end up with a lower standard of living?

    none of this makes any sense at all.. it's bizarro logic..

    According to you – putting additional insulation in the attic would lead to MORE energy use….

  43. Anonymous Avatar

    Gooze,

    If you considered what was exposed across the Pond, you would not minimize it. "Mimi-Watergate", etc.

    This is a HUGE deal. The entire foundabout of the Climate Warming argument has crumbled. Doubters in years past were mocked but it turns out the doubters were right. That's why the resignations and firings are flying.

    There is no evidence to support the theory that man can warm or chill the planet. Not even a tenth of a degree.

    Read some of the European press coverage. They've been man-made warming believers for years, but now they're hopping mad that they were lied to.

    You cannot ignore Climategate.

    -B

  44. " They also buy them so that they can enjoy more benefits for the same money spent on energy.

    People who buy efficient light bulbs tend to use them 10% more than the bulbs they had before."

    Really? where do you get your facts on this?

    why would someone burn a light bulb longer even if they did not need it?

    Do you think folks leave the living room lights and TV on at night while the sleep because they are more efficient?

    you make these bizarro judgement citing theory and facts and have yet to show any actual data to back up what you say.

  45. Anonymous Avatar

    At least RH agrees that his attacks on the elderly professor are based on his conception of farm economics and his unrealistic and unfounded expectations concerning the the value of Countryside land for Urban uses.

    RH admits his views have NOTHING to do with facts about Urban human settlement patterns or the the transportation systems needed to serve them.

    (Note use of Capitals per EMR parameters and use of sweeping condemnations per RH practice.)

    AZAS (AZA is on travel and authorized this post)

  46. Anonymous Avatar

    did you use LESS energy when the price went up and you got a more efficient furnace?

    why do you say that more efficiency results in more use then?

    ——————————

    The original argument wa on efficiency. You lost that argument so now you are changing the rules by introducing two different variables.

    Just listen to me Larry and accept this as a true fact. This is n my area of expertise and I do know what I'm talking about.

    If you have the same amount of use but more efficiency, yes indeed you will save some energy. But there are limits to how much efficiency is cost effective, and so after you squeeze that out of the system you are right back to where you started, and you willeither have to find more energy or stop growing.

    But that is only part of the efficiency story. We use power because we profit from doing so. More efficiency means more jobs that are profitable, and we use energy to complete those jobs, thus subverting some of the "savings" we made from efficiency.

    We choose to spend the savings from efficiency on new work that we would not have been able to afford previously.

    Therefore, not only does efficiency have physical limits, we won't even see some of the expected 'savings' because we will spend them on other stuff.

    And by the way, not heating unoccupied rooms is not an example of improved efficiency. It is an example of lower standard of living.

    RH

  47. Anonymous Avatar

    If what you said was true… then the more efficient cars got – the more miles people would put on their cars and the opposite is happening actually.

    ———————————-

    One has nothign to do with the other. What I say is true.

    It might be true that people are driving less, but I doubt it. If I'm wrong and people are driving less it has nothing to do with the argument above, because that is a proven issue, whether you beleive it or not.

    There are plenty of other reasons people may or may not drive their cars: you cannot prove or disprove my argument either way using post hoc propter hoc fallacies.

    RH

  48. Anonymous Avatar

    you have not demonstrated that and you weasel by using the phrase "can convert".

    You can convert the efficiency into more profitablility but you do not have to. People who use efficient light bulbs use them 10% more often. So for that use (light bulbs) we are looking at the portion of the time when the light bulb is normally off.

    Either bulb uses the same energy when it is off.

    But people with efficient bulbs use them 10% MORE, and those bulbs are OFF less than conventional bulbs.

    It is also true that during the time the bulbs ae "ON" that these peole are opting to save money on energy.

    RH

  49. Anonymous Avatar

    you have not demonstrated that and you weasel by using the phrase "can convert".

    Two variables, idiot.

    If I ONLY had a more efficient furnace I would have a choice of saving money or being more comfortable for the same money.

    But if I have a more efficient furnace AND higher prices I might still have to reduce my usage even beyond what I would have through efficency because my budget won;t support more usage.

    I used less energy because the price went up. But the fact that I also gained some in efficiency meas that I do not have to use AS MUCH LESS, as I would have without the efficiency.

    In otherwords efficiency still allowed me to use more, although the effect is masked by higher overall costs.

    And this is the Attorney Generals problem. he is making one argument on one variable and it is not the one that can ever help us find the right answer, which is lowest overall costs.

    like you, he is engaging in a worthless exercise in (bad) argumentation, which even if he wins changes nothing on the ground.

    The social cost of carbon will be the social cost of carbon whether we have global warming or not. We can measure the costs better by identifying the costs than we can by measuring global temeperatures.

    RH

  50. Anonymous Avatar

    productivity is DEFINED by producing MORE with LESS.

    but you say that folks in Europe that are more energy efficient will use MORE energy and yet STILL end up with a lower standard of living?

    —————————-

    You are either an idiot or delibeately ignoring the facts.

    Europeans use less energy than we do but they are NOT more energy efficient, because they produce far less GDP per unit of energy used. Necessarily that means they work more for less output and have less to show for it.

    They live less well, because it costs them more.

    If they become as energy efficient as we are,thew wll be able to afford to do more, they willearn more,and they will use MORE energy even though they use it more efficiently.

    There is no contradiction in any of that. It is simple thermodynamic economics.

    Easy stuff, any blithering idiot ought to be able to understand it.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar

    Groveton:

    Nice numbers on energy production. These number match what we have seen from reliable sources.

    Do you have some numbers on energy conservation?

    Back in the early 90s, we took a course from Professor Risse who demonstrated that the only way to substantially reduce energy consumption without massive reductions in population was to radically change human settlement patterns.

    What patterns? He advocated then (and the last time I saw him) that settlement patterns must be changed to the patterns and densities that the market demonstrates to be those who have a choice are willing to pay the most for. As luck would have it these patterns also turn out to be the least expensive to build and maintain per capita for large urban areas when total costs are fairly allocated. They require less infrastructure and less total building material. (I think that is why he is so impressed with the work of David Owen.)

    One of the big hurtles in the development of Dr. Risse’s thinking (related to me later) was: Why do humans kept building what was not in their best interest? That is spelled out in the part that opens his new book.

    I was skeptical about such sweeping judgements but have not yet seen anyone disprove is parameters.

    You asked:

    “I wonder if EMR has a prescription for rebuilding a city with a shrinking population in a more functional manner?”

    Of course he does. He wrote half a book on the six strategies and his new book includes a handbook on the process.

    Larry said:

    “In fact, one would think the antidote to scatterization would be abandonment of dysfunctional settlement patterns – no matter the reason.. whether they once were dense and got de-populated or they never go dense enough.”

    Very true, one of Dr. Risse’s sub-strategies is “Subdivision Recycling” and another is “Parcel Consolidation.”

    “EMR presumes that "enough" jobs will always be a built-in component of functional settlement patterns but Detroit as well as Southwest Va have clearly proven that jobs can and do go away and the remaining settlement pattern that once might have been functional is no longer or less so.”

    Could you site a place where Dr. Risse presumes that? I have never heard that from him.

    “At the end of the day – does govt have a legitimate role in "planning" functional settlement patterns?”

    The response to that question which I have heard from Dr. Risse is that Agencies do have that role but only when the levels and responsibilities of governance y are transformed to reflect economic and social reality.

    “When a pvt sector company… or for that matter an entire private sector industry leaves – is there any benefit to the govt doing what Detroit is doing?”

    Big auto is not leaving Detroit, it is leaving the planet. But there will always be Enterprises where there are citizens unless citizens wait too long to grasp control of the trajectory of civilization.

    “You might can "shrink" the boundaries of Detroit but how do you "shrink" the boundaries of the dozens of towns in SW Virginia that no longer have a manufacturing base?”

    By stop thinking of urban spaces – Detroit or small urban enclaves in SW VA – as monolithic globs and think of them as complex organic systems.

    One of the students

  52. " The original argument was on efficiency. You lost that argument so now you are changing the rules by introducing two different variables."

    No. The original discussion was on the statement that you made that increased efficiency fails because people will use more energy that makes up for the efficiency – no net reduction in energy use.

    And that alone – all by itself without bringing in anything else is patently false.

    You keep referring back to Jevons paradox or variants of it but you cannot provide real world data to back it up.

    yes overall energy usage does go up – as population increases but individual energy usage has gone down as we use more fuel efficient cars and houses are more energy efficient.

    The guy that has a $400 electric bill is not going to use MORE energy as a consequence of buying a more fuel efficient furnace. His goal is to reduce his costs by reducing the use energy by using it more efficiently.

    He can do this with a higher rated furnace but he can also do this with better insulation and better windows.

    buying more efficient windows does not lead to increased consumption of energy.

    If what you say is true – LEED buildings would simply result in buildings that use even more energy than conventional buildings.

  53. " By stop thinking of urban spaces – Detroit or small urban enclaves in SW VA – as monolithic globs and think of them as complex organic systems"

    the questions and issues that Groveton, myself and others bring up presumes that there is validity to EMR's basis thesis but we do see a recipe for change.

    It comes across more as a melange of faults and pronouncements that we are doomed without change.

    but where would we start?

    We can't close down METRO and remove the beltways….

    we can't burn down half of Detroit or half the cities in SW Virginia.

    It does little good to say we're all gonna die of functional settlement pattern disease – and conclude – that we're gonna …die….

    not exactly a positive vision eh?

    If EMR's theories had credence, then would you not expect the Gov to have them in mind when talking about job creation and WHERE to focus his efforts locationally?

    I note the UDA legislation has pretty much passed the GA.

    What say you? Is this a step in the right direction?

  54. Anonymous Avatar

    I'm not dong you rhomework for you, especially since you won;t believe the facts when you see them.

    You can look this stuff up in a matter of seconds, if you care to.

    The facts are what they are: thermodynamics and economics have never changed, and never will, no matter how much you and EMR claim otherwise.

    Yes, some peole will put in more efficient heaters and then turn up the heat.

    No, installing insulation is not an example of increasing efficiency, it is an example of conservation. But the economics still applies.

    If a foot of insulation in the atic is good, isn't two feet twice as good? Of course not. Too much insulation is just as wasteful as too little. And it is exactly the same with every other kind of environmental protection.

    But people like you (and EMR) will go on blindly wasting our resources by promoting economic poppycock.

    RH

  55. Anonymous Avatar

    "…demonstrated that the only way to substantially reduce energy consumption without massive reductions in population was to radically change human settlement patterns.

    What patterns? He advocated then (and the last time I saw him) that settlement patterns must be changed to the patterns and densities that the market demonstrates to be those who have a choice are willing to pay the most for…."

    ===============================

    Total and complete nonsense. Empty sentences.

    Of COURSE those who have a choice are sometimes willing to pay more.

    Why is saving energy sufficient reason to change the parttern of settlemtn to one which only the fortuante can afford.

    If this pattern is so efficient, then why does it require the most expensive infrastructure and support, the hicgest taxes, and cost so much more per square foot?

    The only thing EMR has demonstrated to me is a remarkable facility for setting the preface such that the predicate is both undeniable and immaterial.

    Along with a vicious tendency to lash out at anyone he doesn't like. All in the name of having them pay what he thinks is a fair allocation of costs.

    BS, BS, BS.

    RH

  56. Anonymous Avatar

    No. The original discussion was on the statement that you made that increased efficiency fails because people will use more energy that makes up for the efficiency – no net reduction in energy use.

    ——————————–

    As soon as energy use goes down and GDP goes up, you let me know.

    RH

  57. Anonymous Avatar

    We can't close down METRO and remove the beltways….

    —————————–

    Of course we can. We are going to reduce service on metro in order to save money, anyway.

    Think how much we could save if we just closed it.

    Why not follow the decision to its conclusion.

    RH

  58. Anonymous Avatar

    "buying more efficient windows does not lead to increased consumption of energy."

    Sure it does.

    I'll be willing to bet that once he has windows that don't spil cold air down the back of his easy chair, we will draw back the curtains more often.

    For that guy and that instance his total usage might be less. But it is not as much less as predicted. But this is conservation not more efficient energy use.

    More efficient energy use means more "profit" is available for each unit of energy used.

    Everyone likes profit, soo they use more energy in order to get more profit.

    RH

    More efficient energy use

  59. Anonymous Avatar

    Folks, Virgina is not alone –

    "The states of Alabama, Texas, and Virginia have filed lawsuits in federal court arguing that the EPA used flawed science when it concluded that greenhouse gas emissions and resulting climate change endanger public health. They also contend such regulations will wreak havoc on an already fragile economy.

    Joining them in additional lawsuits are plaintiffs that include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Georgia Motor Trucking Association, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, Peabody Energy Co., the National Mining Association, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and 15 members of the U.S. House of Representatives."

    Link – http://www.climatebiz.com/news/2010/02/18/legal-challenges-pile-against-epa-climate-regulation

    And there is good reason to believe that more suits will follow. The reasons are simple, the 'scientific research' is severely flawed. The history of the world does show that the earth goes through this warming/cooling trend and always has. Nothing wrong with polluting less, plenty wrong with 'let's radically change the world over a half baked idea'.

    Just saying.

    Accurate

  60. Anonymous Avatar

    The research has flaws, but not near as many as the claims that all of the research is moot because of them.

    There is plenty of good evidence remaining that global warming is real and manmade.

    The real problem, in my opinion, is that the solutions may cost as much or more as the the damage from global warming.

    We may be facing eventual apocolyptic events either way, and the only thing that makes sense is to prepare for both eventualities.

    While we are making those preparations, we can keep an eye on the temperature. New and additional research will be able to confirm our previous diagnosis prety easily, but to overturn the current evidence is going to take a lot longer.

    You will be more likely to succeed if you work with what you have, rather than what you wish you had.

    It just doesn't make sense that you can dig up millons of tons of carbon and put it in the air without making changes. Even bad science could prove that much.

    RH

  61. Anonymous Avatar

    LEED buildings would simply result in buildings that use even more energy than conventional buildings.

    ==============================

    LEED buildings will result in buildings going up that would not have otherwise, because of energy costs.

    The old inefficient buildings will still be there, burning fuel as usual, and so the new LEED building result in more use not less.

    RH

  62. Anonymous Avatar

    Peter:

    More crackerjack journalism from the WaPos' editorial page.

    "In a Feb. 26 editorial, we said Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was "posturing" during the Thursday health-care summit by stacking the voluminous Senate bill before him. Mr. Cantor says that he had the bill with him, well-tabbed, not for show but so that Republicans could respond if specific provisions of the bill came up for discussion. That makes sense, and we should not have characterized his purpose as we did."

    TMT

  63. Anonymous Avatar

    Interesting! Larry noted:

    "the questions and issues that Groveton, myself and others bring up presumes that there is validity to EMR's basis thesis but we do see a recipe for change.

    "It comes across more as a melange of faults and pronouncements that we are doomed without change.

    "but where would we start?"

    I have never taken a course from EMR, have not have time to read either book from start to finish but by reading the specific things he cites, I can understand just what he means and where he things citizens need to start.

    Perhaps Larry spends too much time thinking up questions and too little actually reading the material.

    FOTW

  64. Anonymous Avatar

    What interest me is that RH likes to talk about being a fair minded 'scientist' and careful analysist. He says he cannot understand why Prof. Risse gets upset.

    Then when someone uses the same twisted, selfserving anti-logic on his statements as he uses on Dr. Risse he goes balistic.

    Spring cannot come too soon.

    JMC

  65. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Then when someone uses the same twisted, selfserving anti-logic on his statements as he uses on Dr. Risse he goes balistic."

    I'm not trying to sell anything other than equal opportunity coupled with equal responsibility, and Dr. Risse is.

    If you take those twisted self serving statements apart and diagram them using symbolic logic you will see that they are nothing like the same as my counterarguments.

    If they were, Dr. Risse and the shades could attack my arguments, instead of me personally.

    I only suggest that there are important facts thet the Dr. conveniently overlooks in his desire to sell his ideas.

    RH

Leave a Reply