Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Mole whacking

With the coming of spring, the moles have sprung up and the godly tire of 24/7 mole whacking duties. Some say, this stuff is so dumb no one could believe it, but, there are many sacks of hammers on two legs, and a lot of them are in state legislatures. Back in November, Rod Bembry, Head of the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment rejected an application by Sunflower Electric Power to build two coal fired plants on health and emissions grounds.

Sunflower Electric Power threatened to sue, sued and then attempted to buy the Kansas Leg to overturn the decision. Interestingly they were outspent 4 to 1 by a natural gas giant, Chesapeake Energy, still, the legislature easily passed a bill which would have overturned the decision, only for it to be vetoed by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. As a friend in KS told Eli yesterday, there are enough votes in the lower house to sustain the veto, but what brings out the need for mole whacking is a comment in the KS Star article by Karen Dillon and David Klepper,

Count Rep. Larry Powell as a skeptic. This year, the Garden City Republican offered lawmakers copies of a book that asserted there was no scientific consensus on global warming. Titled Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, the book was sent to Powell by the Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank based in Chicago that has received funding from foundations associated with the owners of Wichita-based energy giant Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil.

After state rejection of the Sunflower project, Powell wrote to the state's newspapers, saying carbon emissions likely would boost agricultural output by 50 percent.

Many lawmakers say climate change may end up being much ado about nothing.

And those scientists who say climate change could have a catastrophic impact?

"Hysterics who claim the sky is falling," said Rep. Mike Kiegerl, an Olathe Republican.

During four days of legislative hearings on the coal plant, only one climate scientist spoke. And he got only seven minutes to explain the work of the International Panel on Climate Change, a consortium of 2,000 scientists.

Not that it would help, but maybe we need to send Avery and Singer, Unstoppable Hot Air to our friends in Kansas?


bi said...

Y' know warming stopped in 'ninety-eight,
And in 2k7, once more -- yeah mate;
For mankind's power 's mighty small,
Yet burning oil makes plants grow tall;

The Warmists are now despairing
at the pres'dent-hopefuls' accepting;
And the nineteen thousand scientists are now
nineteen Galileos --

There 's no warming,
There 's no warming,
It's just a Terrist Worldwide

There 's no warming,
There 's no warming,
For polar bears adapt
and so will we...

-- bi, Global Dumbing

bi said...

Our gov'rnment servants crap their shorts
when inquisitors say "No retorts!"
While the CEI, and Peabody,
are big on job security;

And all roads lead to Gore Gore Gore,
the bogeyman in climate lore;
No Lockwood, Santer, Arrhenius,
just Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore --

There 's no warming,
There 's no warming,
It's just a Terrist Worldwide

There 's no warming,
There 's no warming,
For polar bears adapt
and so will we...

-- bi, Global Dumbing

bi said...

And Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
hates Stalinists and Führeren,
If lots of folks agree it's junk,
then they are wrong, it's treasure sunk;

So next time when you take a pee,
and folks say it's not English tea,
Just tell them in their face that you're
a freedom-loving dude --

There 's no warming,
There 's no warming,
It's just a Terrist Worldwide

There 's no warming,
There 's no warming,
For polar bears adapt
and so will we...

-- bi, Global Dumbing

Dano said...

Staffers will look at this book and maybe 10% will treat it like it has value, and it'll get passed on. 10% is pretty small.



Belette said...

In KS? Or do you mean KC? How big is Kathleen, anyway?


EliRabett said...

It's very complicated. KC is in MO, except for the small part that is in KS. Eli's information is that KaSe may be looking for s bigger job outside of KS, although she is rather small

If that is clear, I have not done a good enough job

John Mashey said...

Note: in the long run, farmers should be very receptive to KaSe's message, if they don't get too much b.s. dumped on them...

1) A farmer's biggest asset is normally the land they own. Unlike extractive industries that move somewhere else when done, farmland does not easily move, except by soil erosion, not a Good Thing.

"Adapt" means: "Sell the land your family has owned for a hundred years, for whatever you can get, and go somewhere else."

2) A farmer knows that Droughts Are Bad.

papertiger said...

Godly you say?
This hoax you have been promoting has led to world wide famine.
There is blood on your hands.

Oh and John Massey don't you dare you dirty SOB, don't you dare pretend that there are farmers in this world who aren't laughing there asses off skipping to the bank, blessing the gulibility of the public that there was such a lie as AGW.
Record wheat prices, record corn prices, all of it due to ethanol.
Personally, I hope those farmers trip over a starving child on the way to the bank and break a hip.
And fuck you all.
Pray to whatever liberal assholes pray to, that you never meet me in a dark alley.

Anonymous said...


As a regular lurker on this blog I recognise that you might be spitting venom at people who might have advocated biofuels - I see the word biofuels and switch off normally. As we are now seeing from a humanitarian point of view it's a dead end. However your premise that biofuel switch over is purely due to AGW concerns is very very questionable - energy security in the face of rising oil prices is a major factor (I suspect the dominant one in view of the US otherwise showing disinterest in CO2 emissions control.)

Do not fall into the trap of making a Straw Man that AGW = Biofuels.

It does not.

I for one fully accept the scientific consensus and read the science as a hobby. Your claim that AGW is a hoax just shows me you know didly on that subject - as I'm bored with denialists I'll leave you to your beliefs. But to see what is happening with regards corn/wheat prices is no surprise to me. I have never supported biofuels.

However there is a major point to make. Whilst US corn exports have recently been subsumed by the stupid rush for biofuels (USDA). The situation in Asia is largely due to increasing prosperity leading to increasing demand and in particular a westernisation of diets.

In a worldwide market this is a very complex picture, if you intend to investigate the root causes I wish you luck. I gave up after some months as I was simply unable to find the raw data I needed (for outside EU/US).


Anonymous said...

Cobbly, dear chap. (Sorry to digress Eli.) IC here (cluck, cluck). I see you got p***ed off wasting time with HarryTheHateful and PinHead over there. I'm tempted to have a go at HarryTheHateful's latest. It's all written, but I just wonder "What the hell for?"

Cymraeg llygoden

Anonymous said...

Papertiger, your English is about as good as your Maths.

The corn "shortage" is baloney created by ADM to push prices up. Take high fructose corn syrups out of bread and all the other foods where they have no business being (i.e. any food where they're found) and the prices plummet. Perhaps the obesity rates will do the same.

There is more corn produced than what is needed to feed people, that's why the vast majority of it goes to animal feedstock and HFCS.

Talk about starving children is grotesque posturing from propaganda fed weak minds.


John Mashey said...

Without wishing to praise ADM or anything like that, or the politics that pushes corn ethanol, speaking as an old farmboy:

a) Petroleum-for-burning-in farm-machinery is pretty much going away over this century, and maybe by 2050, depending on whose Peak Oil charts you believe.

b) We can and will electrify everything we can, including at least lighter tractors, which already exist. 400HP combines with 60-gallon diesel tanks may be harder, as are Class 8 grain trucks.

c) The manpower-efficient big Mid-West farms are only that way because of
(1) fertilizer, much of whose production uses natural gas
(2) use of a lot of farm machinery.
(3) Good plant breeding, scientific analysis, yield improvements, in some cases, genetic modification.

After Peak Oil really hits, we get to keep (3), and anything in (2) that can be electrified. For whatever is really hard to electrify, at some point, diesel prices will get high enough that to keep food flowing from those farms, *somebody* will be doing biofuels. In any case, the idea that the current agricultural surplus will be used to feed poor people elsewhere, i.e., by shipping bulk grain across the sea ... seems unlikely post-petroleum. here, I'm fond of Norman Borlaug: help people feed themselves.
In 1900, about 40% of the the US population were farmers. Now it's ~2%, and that's because of (1), (2), and (3).

Of course, we could split those big farms up and sell them to the Amish ... or a whole lot of urban dwellers (some of whom really have no idea whence comes their food) can learn the joys of daily farmwork in rural communities.

Most civilizations have started with a high percentage of farmers, and then, within the constraints of their technology, have been able to generate enough excess food to support some percentage of people doing other things.

98% is astoundingly high. I can't think of a modern civilization that has reversed the trend towards urbanization, but we might just going to start finding out in another decade or two. I make no judgements about whether that's good or bad, and I haven't yet seen a good model for a reasonable post-petroleum percentage.

Anonymous said...

Cambodia. Year Zero.

Anonymous said...

Hello Cymraeg llygoden(IC),

Great to, er "hear"/"read"(?), from you. :)

With regards t'other place, Beavis & Butthead can have it. Last I time I popped in I think Beavis was touting Heinz Hug - which would just about sum up his lack of comprehension.

I'm on the verge of committing myself to a blog on the Arctic collapse, I just need to make sure I can stay committed for the years it may take (<<10years IMHO). If I do it'll be a denialist free zone. I really think we've hit the stage where arguing with the dolts merely bolsters the self-delusion that they have a point.

Take care.

Cobbly :)

(Sorry and thanks Eli, back to lurking for me....)

guthrie said...

Papertiger- we have some nice dark alleyways in Scotland. I'm sure I can find some people who would like to have a word with you in them, since you seem to be so desperate to flaunt your alleged superiority in the field of violence. Heck, I'd do it myself if I could be bothered.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, greenie lefties like George Monbiot were railing against bioethanol quite a number of years ago:

Thats from 3 and a half years ago. Since I read that I have been against biofuels, but the EU seems to have snuck its requirements in on the sly, as usual.
Meanwhile, in the USA, biofuels have clearly been a huge boondoggle for certain agricultural companies right from the start, but you know, America loves its subsidies.

Anonymous said...

I'm becoming a little concerned that the Pielke Jr. machine is getting out of control again. Climate Progress is applying a proper stick to Pielke Jr.'s backside, but I know that the lagomorph has a taste for Pielke hide.

Mus musculus anonymouse

EliRabett said...

Liver dumplings

Anonymous said...

By the way, papertiger, I'll meet you in a dark alley, a clear one, on the ring, and any ol' place your empty head can lead your sorry bottom. Ain't scared.


EliRabett said...

Let us see, an on line back alley fight between a anonymouse (?) named paper tiger, and another named saturnian. The electrons are sure to flow and we can make some bucks by selling the video.

Right. Forgive Eli, but take it somewhere else

Anonymous said...

Sorry Eli, sometimes the tone used, as well as the content, makes it hard to stay cool.