PA-Gov: Corbett, Wolf Clash on New EPA Regulations

carbon-emissionsPresident Obama’s new plan to fight carbon emissions is causing things to heat up in the PA governor’s race.

Gov. Corbett announced his opposition to the new EPA regulations, calling them “job-killing”. Meanwhile Tom Wolf tentatively voiced support for the goals of the plan, while keeping the President (and his mixed approval ratings) at arms length.

The plan, which was released on Monday, aims to cut carbon emissions from power plants by 30% based on 2005 levels by 2030.

Gov. Corbett made sure to link Wolf to the federal energy regulations, which he sees as a tax.

“I am alarmed that President Obama and Tom Wolf would both support a cap-and-trade tax on our energy sector that would jeopardize over 62,000 Pennsylvania coal jobs,” Gov. Corbett said in a statement.

The governor said that Wolf can either side with President Obama or with Pennsylvania workers.

Wolf questioned Gov. Corbett’s leadership and explained that the new regulations must be carried out responsibly.

“Gov. Corbett’s failed leadership and lack of policy direction have hurt the coal industry. His lack of strategic planning around the energy industry and extraction has cost Pennsylvania,” Wolf stated.

“The new rules that give states flexibility in creating a plan provide an opportunity for leadership from the governor, but we need to make sure they are applied fairly, allow for adjustments, and create economic opportunities, not simply additional burdens,” he continued.

In contrast, Gov. Corbett cannot see a way in which the EPA regulations can help Pennsylvanians.

“Our state has come too far over the past four years to go back to these overreaching tax-and-spend policies, and Pennsylvanians have my promise that I will fight these regulations every step of the way,” Corbett said.

With the general election just over the horizon, expect more battles to come on energy policy.

June 3rd, 2014 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Governor, Top Stories | 44 Comments

44 thoughts on “PA-Gov: Corbett, Wolf Clash on New EPA Regulations”

  1. Unsanctioned R says:

    My comment has been awaiting moderation for some time. Here it is with the second link removed and pasted above:

    “1) The Guardian blog is called “Climate-Consensus -the 97%”. You see, the 97% is a subtitle.” It’s clearly in the title, but you’re smart to be defensive, the authors are not truthseekers, the “97%” figure has been proven as propaganda that’s only repeated by the arrogant who don’t like to deal with inconvenient facts. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136?mod=trending_now_2

    “2) read the article again. The authors didn’t cherry pick. They gave an example of cherry picking and demonstrated that 10 and 15 year blocks are misleading. Look at the graph in the cherry picking section. The black dotted line is the trendline for almost 40 years. Short spans, like are used in leveling off claims, are insufficient.”. The span of consequence is the temperature data forward that begins when the models can no longer use history to fit to, to cheat. Your guys take a preferred period that fits their hypothesis. Only now apparently is 40 yrs an appropriate time scale for judging climate. Any other time they’d say it’s too short to judge. If we continued not to see warming for another 20-25 years, they’d say, ’40 years is much too short a period to judge climate.’ Coincidentally, the McKitrick video in a non-biased, background info kind of way, shows how Mathematically choosing different periods last century creates very different trends. I sound like a broken record, but I’m being forced here, the reason the past 15 years’ recorded temperature data is important is because that’s where we can test whether our understanding of CO2 and it’s effect on the climate are any good and whether then we can say that increased CO2 will bring about temperature caused catastrophe. This is why the other article is so humorous. The AGW crowd want to continue living in a theoretical world. They tell us the models are getting better…but the reason they say that is because they can use forcing factors and track better with the past 15-20 years AFTER they already know what the answer is. Then they celebrate like it means something and the sheep repeat it as if the goalposts were never moved. One of the commenters below blamed money and industry for the confusion. They were right about money, but the magnitude and the actors they got wrong.

    “3) McKitrick has been discredited on climate change. Only those who deny science follow his nonsense.” False, he’s been personally attacked by a lot of government funded sources and shills. It was McKitrick who took apart Michael Mann and embarrassed the establishment. Mann’s hockey stick (the one that erases the known midieval warming period) btw cannot be recreated because the data is conveniently missing. For more on how the monied interests treat scientists who don’t pull the line, read: [Link 2]

    “4) There is warming. Stop pretending their isn’t despite all the evidence. If the polar ice cap was reduced to an ice cube and the water was up the Lady Liberty’s knees you’d still be denying it.” there’s only warming when you cherrypick. The question anyway is, ‘does CO2 cause warming?’ The models were designed to test that hypothesis, and the models are failing. It’s blind faith, a religious fervor that drives anyone to say they can predict the climate with all that we know today.

  2. Unsanctioned R says:

    “1) The Guardian blog is called “Climate-Consensus -the 97%”. You see, the 97% is a subtitle.” It’s clearly in the title, but you’re smart to be defensive, the authors are not truthseekers, the “97%” figure has been proven as propaganda that’s only repeated by the arrogant who don’t like to deal with inconvenient facts. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136?mod=trending_now_2

    “2) read the article again. The authors didn’t cherry pick. They gave an example of cherry picking and demonstrated that 10 and 15 year blocks are misleading. Look at the graph in the cherry picking section. The black dotted line is the trendline for almost 40 years. Short spans, like are used in leveling off claims, are insufficient.”. The span of consequence is the temperature data forward that begins when the models can no longer use history to fit to, to cheat. Your guys take a preferred period that fits their hypothesis. Only now apparently is 40 yrs an appropriate time scale for judging climate. Any other time they’d say it’s too short to judge. If we continued not to see warming for another 20-25 years, they’d say, ’40 years is much too short a period to judge climate.’ Coincidentally, the McKitrick video in a non-biased, background info kind of way, shows how Mathematically choosing different periods last century creates very different trends. I sound like a broken record, but I’m being forced here, the reason the past 15 years’ recorded temperature data is important is because that’s where we can test whether our understanding of CO2 and it’s effect on the climate are any good and whether then we can say that increased CO2 will bring about temperature caused catastrophe. This is why the other article is so humorous. The AGW crowd want to continue living in a theoretical world. They tell us the models are getting better…but the reason they say that is because they can use forcing factors and track better with the past 15-20 years AFTER they already know what the answer is. Then they celebrate like it means something and the sheep repeat it as if the goalposts were never moved. One of the commenters below blamed money and industry for the confusion. They were right about money, but the magnitude and the actors they got wrong.

    “3) McKitrick has been discredited on climate change. Only those who deny science follow his nonsense.” False, he’s been personally attacked by a lot of government funded sources and shills. It was McKitrick who took apart Michael Mann and embarrassed the establishment. Mann’s hockey stick (the one that erases the known midieval warming period) btw cannot be recreated because the data is conveniently missing. For more on how the monied interests treat scientists who don’t pull the line, read:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/the-bullying-of-bengtsson-and-the-coming-climate-disruption-hypocalypse/

    “4) There is warming. Stop pretending their isn’t despite all the evidence. If the polar ice cap was reduced to an ice cube and the water was up the Lady Liberty’s knees you’d still be denying it.” there’s only warming when you cherrypick. The question anyway is, ‘does CO2 cause warming?’ The models were designed to test that hypothesis, and the models are failing. It’s blind faith, a religious fervor that drives anyone to say they can predict the climate with all that we know today.

  3. 1) The Guardian blog is called “Climate-Consensus -the 97%”. You see, the 97% is a subtitle.

    2) read the article again. The authors didn’t cherry pick. They gave an example of cherry picking and demonstrated that 10 and 15 year blocks are misleading. Look at the graph in the cherry picking section. The black dotted line is the trendline for almost 40 years. Short spans, like are used in leveling off claims, are insufficient.

    3) McKitrick has been discredited on climate change. Only those who deny science follow his nonsense.

    4) There is warming. Stop pretending their isn’t despite all the evidence. If the polar ice cap was reduced to an ice cube and the water was up the Lady Liberty’s knees you’d still be denying it.

  4. Unsanctioned R says:

    “The economists are the worst at statistical modeling (look at the crappy state of the economy and how every single one of them missed the market collapse).” You’ve confused modeling with testing, but congratulations on creating the new term ‘statistical modeling!’

    “The economists (and you) are looking at one chart, and discounting all the other physical measurements like size/depth of polar ice, acidification of the ocean, the locked up CO2 and methane, and the limits on the oceans’ ability to absorb the CO2, and the effects of more warming creating a runaway effect past the tipping point.” Before the models failed, the “97%” called examples the effects of a warming atmosphere, now they’ve morphed into the “evidence” of CO2’s effect on things despite no warming. It doesn’t work that way.

    “Economists don’t know sh*t about sh*t when it comes to these things. REAL scientists do. McKitrick is just a shill for a lobbying front group.”
    I see you went for the most discredited shills to make your case.

    “Stating that water vapor contributes a greater amount to warming completely misses the points that
    1) pound-for-pound CO2 has a great effect of causing global warming. Despite CO2 ‘s lesser abundance, it contributes 1/3 the effect of all the water vapor.
    2) Man-made activity is not altering the water vapor level, but it is significantly increasing the CO2 levels
    3) The current level of temperature rise over the last 50 years has already been disastrous to the environment.”
    If CO2 were as powerful as you say, the models wouldn’t be so inaccurate, because CO2 is increasing and has all your researched “positive feedbacks.” 3) is an exaggeration which ignores the benefits many places have seen over the past century.

    “read this:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html
    ‘The truth is that global warming has not paused. It is true that the rate of surface temperature warming is somewhat smaller over the last 15 years, but selectively citing the period from 1998 to 2012 is inappropriate—especially since ocean heat content continued to rise at a steady pace and the Arctic sea ice hit record lows in 2012.'”
    LOL. I’m glad you chose that quote. I could have chosen a few others, but it’s all that you need to know about the bias of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Instead of saying the rate of warming is practically zero, they say it’s “somewhat smaller.” Nice.

    The other Guardian link is a blog called the “97%,” which I find quite fitting, because no truthseeking scientist would allow such a misleading, discredited title as a label. But, they actually had the balls to call the slope (or non slope) an “optical illusion.” That aside, I was humored how the blog would make an accusation like cherrypicking data, and then would turn around and do the same. If you find the article confusing that’s because it’s B.S. You know, since the models are failing, the IPCC has taken what was a straightforward measurement of temperature and so contorted their explanations so that it seems like stagnant temps really are what we expected. Taxpayers are not fooled by these taxtakers.

  5. This is a better explanation of not only why the models have been accurate, but it also explains the tricks/flaws in the naysayer arguments that are misrepresenting the data

    Excellent read:
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

  6. Unsanctioned R-
    The economists are the worst at statistical modeling (look at the crappy state of the economy and how every single one of them missed the market collapse).

    The economists (and you) are looking at one chart, and discounting all the other physical measurements like size/depth of polar ice, acidification of the ocean, the locked up CO2 and methane, and the limits on the oceans’ ability to absorb the CO2, and the effects of more warming creating a runaway effect past the tipping point.

    Economists don’t know sh*t about sh*t when it comes to these things. REAL scientists do. McKitrick is just a shill for a lobbying front group.

    Stating that water vapor contributes a greater amount to warming completely misses the points that
    1) pound-for-pound CO2 has a great effect of causing global warming. Despite CO2 ‘s lesser abundance, it contributes 1/3 the effect of all the water vapor.
    2) Man-made activity is not altering the water vapor level, but it is significantly increasing the CO2 levels
    3) The current level of temperature rise over the last 50 years has already been disastrous to the environment.

    read this:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html
    “The truth is that global warming has not paused. It is true that the rate of surface temperature warming is somewhat smaller over the last 15 years, but selectively citing the period from 1998 to 2012 is inappropriate—especially since ocean heat content continued to rise at a steady pace and the Arctic sea ice hit record lows in 2012.”

  7. Unsanctioned R says:

    1. You’re making a beginner’s mistake. The models pick up the flat trends in the PAST, but they miss the ones in the PRESENT. They’ve never diverged this long. That’s why we use mathematical/statistical tools (understood by many economists who are experts and part of the IPCC team) to evaluate the models’ reliability. The models have overemphasized CO2’s role.

    2. What you suggest has already been incorporated into the models, which to state, once again, are wrong.

    3. Record levels of something harmless and scarce is not important.

    4. That’s another hypothesis, which is in the models, which have failed.

    Wishful thinking is not science. This time your problem isn’t me, ‘it’s math.’

  8. David Diano says:

    Unsanctioned R-
    1) If you look at the chart (and TRY to understand it), you will see minor dips and leveling in the 1970’s and the late 80’s. What you are doing is ignoring the overall trend, and looking at a few year sample (that is still normal variation within the increasing trend).

    2) I’d expect an increase in temperature woud lead to more water vapor from the oceans. The melting of icecaps will reduce the cooling effect of reflection, as darker ocean water absorbs more heat.

    3) CO2 is a problem regardless of other greenhouse gases. Ignoring record levels of CO2 is counter-productive.

    4) The current temp rise we’ve already experienced over the past 50 years is causing problems that are going to accelerate warming by freeing up greenhouse gases locked in the permafrost and continued melting of the icecaps.

  9. Unsanctioned R says:

    1) I didn’t nitpik the NASA data, but apparently, you have trouble reading a chart–it levels flat, despite the increase in CO2, at precisely the point where the models no longer have a history to match to.
    2) What I’m saying (I thought rather clearly for people of average intelligence) is that CO2 is not predictive of temperature. It is a minor greenhouse gas (H2O being 98% or so). U.S. Postal rates correlate just as well if not better to the temperature readings…maybe they’re causing global warming? Why would we follow a policy of reducing CO2 when it is not affecting temperature? The “97%” of scientists will have no choice but to recognize that it’s back to the drawing board. To quote Nate Silver, “it’s math,” and the Europeans know it. You sound like a Romneyphile the Friday before election day or a Schwartz volunteer talking about ground game. I will relish digging your words back up in a few years.

    I too would like to see you attempt to redeem credibility by answering Balaizik’s questions instead of making personal attacks. You always want others to answer your questions but when you put out verifiably false assertions, you act like it never happened. For goodness sakes…you can’t even interpret your own chart from NASA, good grief.

  10. Unsanctioned R-
    1) The NASA graphs are an official and authoritative source of temperature readings that show global warming has been occurring.
    2) Are you seriously going to pretend that you don’t recognize the past 50 years as the period of increasing CO2 emissions? Here is a chart of CO2 levels
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

    3) You seem to be quoting unnamed UN claims about caves and such (and vague about the time periods).

    4) The actually data measurements show both global warming is occurring and that CO2 levels are on the rise at the same time. We already know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Denying any of this measured evidence is foolish.

    Matt-
    You seem to be an advocate for http://www.pa-can.org/ This appears to be some right-wing crank organization. Their twitter feed uses “news” sources like breitbart.com with zero credibility that are just right-wing and industry shills.
    The home page’s “breaking news” is about offering $1000 rewards for VoterID fraud, with a date of Monday Oct 8th (which was in 2012).

  11. Dear David,
    You’re a tough nut (although I think you’re not being objective and secretly hoping for higher global temperatures). You’re right that probably no one is still reading, so I’m going to move on. I’d suggest some kind of gentleman’s wager. If you have any ideas, email me. 
    Also, if you decide to answer my questions below, shoot me a message and I’ll be sure to check back and comment in a timely fashion as well. I’m not hard to find.

  12. Unsanctioned R says:

    Why do you continue to attack the messenger and not the science (with B.S.. evidence I might add)? Why do you not defend your mistakes called out below and then try to sneak in a “last word?” You point to a temperature chart and say, “see!” but where is the CO2!? I’ll tell the inquiring minds, because inquiring minds want to know. As a matter of fact, inquiring minds following this tread already know…the CO2 is always increasing…but, you can just barely make out–on the selective graphs from NASA that David chose to mislead–the flat temperature of the last decade and a half. Why is that interesting? Well of course it’s interesting because that’s not only a period of increasing CO2 as the “97%” predicted correctly, but it’s also the point at which the “smartest scientists on the planet” began their models based on CO2…and when they could no longer cheat by looking at the past to fit their models, their predictions of the future began to wildly exceed reality from that point forward. hum.

    The great irony here is that the U.N. used to say that if we all just started living in caves and stop burning fossil fuels that our global temps may approach the temps we’ve already recorded…without even reducing CO2 (as already established, global CO2 is still increasing), we got there anyway. And if temps are better than the “97%” ever thought we could get to, why should we continue to believe that we’ll see temperature caused disaster when there’s no increased temperature (linked to CO2 at least)?

    David, stop digging, you’re embarrassing yourself.

  13. Matt-
    You didn’t “shut me up”. The thread moved to the second page of PoliticsPA and I rarely post to topics once they leave the first page.

    First of all, you got it backwards: “The prudent public policy, given the high costs and low benefits of doing something, is to wait and do nothing”

    The costs of addressing climate change are low and offer high-reward (in terms of preventing/slowing the problem) as opposed to doing nothing and reaching a tipping point beyond which the fixes are beyond current technology and financial resources.

    Kitrick is part of the “Global Warming Policy Foundation”. This is an industry lobbying front.
    From Wikipedia:
    “In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of July 2010, came from membership contributions.[26] In response to the accounts, Bob Ward commented that “We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners.”

    The organization has been “selective” with it’s charts (and it’s original logo) by leaving out key years.

    Here are the charts from NASA that show the past 130 years:
    data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

    Even you can spot the trend.

  14. Wow, this has gotten a little out of hand. Although I’m told, when you shut up David Diano with a couple simple questions, you must be doing something right! Maybe I convinced him, or, I should say, the data gave him new eyes.

    Let me assure Isaac as one who’s research was previously funded by the US Global Change Research Program, that what he calls specious data is what the rest of the world (including the folks he thinks he’s defending) uses as official global temperatures and projections. Even the layman can see that something is amiss.

    Dr. McKitrick is correct and Unsanctioned R is (almost) correct. There is ALMOST no statistical leg for the models to stand on. Although recent measurements have trended outside the confidence interval, in a couple more years the trends will be definitive. The likelihood of the AGW models being predictive at this point seems to be a long-shot bet. The prudent public policy, given the high costs and low benefits of doing something, is to wait and do nothing.

  15. sheeple chase says:

    Why don’t the progressives ever recognize that the scientists they point to with apocalyptic predictions are also the same ones who in the exec summary of the IPCC report believe that even if we make draconian cuts to carbon dioxide that it will hardly effect climate?

    Policies like theirs is like trading 5 most wanted terrorists for one traitor.

  16. Unsanctioned R says:

    Isaac L, you’ve just regurgitated a whole lot of false crap. No data, again. You yourself must not understand science (although you are good with rhetoric). When a model fails to predict with any statistical power, a scientist–that is to say anyone who has studied any hard or soft science, who you obviously are not–knows that the conclusions are COMPLETELY unreliable. That’s the scientific method bud. Deal with it…temperatures have not responded to CO2! The hypothesis is false. And people like you have actually been hurting the poor telling them that they have to pay more for everything to combat a now debunked theory. You have zero scientific credibility. Perhaps if it was the year 2000, you could fool some people, but today we simply point to the data and like in sports sing na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, good bye.

    Oh yea, let me say it in caps: YOUR CLAIMS ARE LIES!

  17. Isaac L. says:

    In this thread: a lot of people that don’t understand how science works.

    Anthropogenic climate change is a fact – it’s not up for debate – let me put this tidbit in all caps for the people that skim and don’t seem to grasp this: SCIENTISTS ARE MORE CERTAIN THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY HUMANS THAN THAT SMOKING CAUSES CANCER AND THAT VITAMINS ARE GOOD FOR YOU. Climate deniers (“skeptics”) rely on junk science and specious misinformation that is specifically meant to muddy the waters for the average voter to avoid regulations that hurt profits for certain industries that rely on burning hydrocarbons and currently enjoy polluting without having to pay for it. Pollution causes a number of economic and health costs to surrounding areas (check out the higher incidences of lung and heart problems near coal-fired power plants). The irony of course is that we have largely conservatives and Republicans defending free-riders (economic parlance for deadbeats).

    Just because scientists have proven that doesn’t mean that their models are perfect. There are a lot of factors involved and as more data becomes available, their models improve. Revising your model means it’s getting better but it doesn’t mean that the old one was completely worthless – it’s like going from a 1MP camera to 2, then a 3, 4, 5, etc. – the image gets clearer as the science improves.

    In conclusion, if you think climate science is bunk, grab a carton of Camels because 4 out of 5 doctors smoke them, or better yet, get a pack of “Freedom Torches” – few things make you feel more American than smoking two packs a day of Luckies. If not, the Nazis, and their rabid anti-smoking policies, win!

  18. Unsanctioned R says:

    It’s not wise to argue aneckdotes b/c our climate has always been changing.
    The IPCC made predictions all based on temperature increases linked to CO2 increases. If you believe that ice is melting faster, for example, you have to acknowledge that it’s probably not due to Co2 increasing temperatures…because temps have not increased. It’s basic logic.

    The warmists want to scare us into conformity with out of context examples, but the temperature data is no longer on their side and no one is denying it. Their models have failed so their catastrophic predictions are worthless.

  19. Jamie says:

    Loss of Arctic sea ice > gain of Antarctic sea ice; gain of Antarctic sea ice < loss of Antarctic glacier

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm

  20. Uh-oh says:

    @David Diano: you remind me of the guy in the Simpsons episode trying to sell Springfield a monorail.

    Germany bought the train already, pardon the pun. Why don’t we learn from their mistake?

  21. sheeple chase says:

    Whenever I see someone driving with a 1,000 lb. battery in the trunk I think about all the sick kids in the country that produced it, and then I wonder how the driver could be so ignorant or arrogant.

  22. Left my heart in Philadelphia says:

    I’m with Obama, we need more natural gas to replace coal.

  23. Unsanctioned R says:

    Looks like the researchers at NAS look dynamically at various transportation technologies and anticipate technological breakthroughs. Despite that, electric is still the worst. It’s important not to ignore the negatives and just add the positives.

    Water vapor is 99% of GHG which are essential, btw, for keeping us from freezing solid during night time. Perhaps climate models have been too focused on CO2, which is a fraction of a percent of GHG? Who knows? But, in 2010 the climate models were still just barely within the statistical range of acceptability, now they are not.
    http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/warmist-spiegeleuro-media-concede-global-warming-has-ended-models-were-wrong-scientists-are-baffled/
    The NAS is a huge beneficiary of global warming government grants.

  24. Steeple chase-
    Well, the study DOES acknowledge global warming: “In addition to its external effects in the present, the use of fossil fuels for energy creates external effects in the future through its emissions of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs)3 that cause climate change, subsequently resulting in damages to ecosystems and society.”
    “3:Greenhouse gases absorb heat from the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere, resulting in much of the energy being radiated back toward the surface rather than into space. These gases include water vapor, CO2, ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide.”

    The study is from 2010 and is based on data from 2005. There have been tremendous efficiency improvements over the last decade. Wind/solar have increased their efficiency. Also, Wind/Solar are more locally produced and distributed, reducing the current (HUGE) losses from the big power plants.

    There is currently underway something called the Solar Roadway Project that is in phase 2 development. If successful, not only would the roads generate power (and lights to dynamically draw road lines, warnings, etc) but electric cars could actually draw stored power from the roads for part of their needs.

    I’m not saying the entire fleet of cars would/should be all electric, but I disagree that electric cars are more polluting than their combustion engine counter-parts. Also, let’s keep in mind that today’s electric vehicles are early generation and somewhat prototypical. Think of today’s e-cars as the cell phones of 5 or 6 years ago, compared to today’s phone and improvements in battery technology.

  25. Unsanctioned R says:

    The chief reason electric cars are so polluting is that half the energy sent to your house is lost in transmission. NAS appears to balance the pluses (some of which David highlights) and minuses.

    You can make an environmental case for hybrids, but not all-electric.

  26. sheeple chase says:

    That’s right Dave, because the midichlorean level of the unicorns at night make their farts that much more regenerative. Whatever!

    Here’s the National Academy of Sciences report: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794

    It doesn’t even include the externalities of all the polluted children mining the ore for your batteries in second and third world countries.

  27. sheeple chase-
    Electric cars are less polluting because:

    1) They use the energy they have more efficiently (like regenerative braking).

    2) They can be powered from wind and solar sources.

    BTW, if enough cars charge at night, and draw power, the power plants don’t have ramp down as much at night, and back up again in the morning. This leveling would save wear and tear on the generators. Also, the grid would be set up to draw power from the cars in times of heavy load or emergency.

  28. sheeple chase says:

    Where do you think electric cars get the energy for their batteries, Ed? The Academy of Science, no right-leaning group, you should know ranks electric vehicles as more polluting. Thank goodness you’re not making policy (yet).
    Our schools have gone to crap.

  29. Ed Moore says:

    Why do these Teapublican trolls insist on usernames, are the afraid of the idiocy of their opinions ? If Wolf is to not just win but destroy Corbett and his handlers, he must turn Green, not Purple. And yes, the Jeep is getting old. Time for a Tesla, time for a Tesla battery plant, time for Pennsylvania’s tech sector to lead our economy out of this extraction morass.

  30. “Lot’s of people have fallen ill (and died) from the increased heat, violent weather, flooding, etc.” Temps have flatlined. I’ll ask you again, do you think the temperature predictions have been correct??? They predicted we’d have more inland occurrences of major hurricanes, yet we’ve had fewer. You may be counting illness and death due to imaginary heat.

    You said people were treated for the toxic effects and I asked you to produce one example. We’re still waiting. I think you may have gotten your anti-fracking argument mixed up with the carbon dioxide one, but it is interesting that Wolf/Obama want to offset CO2 with more fracking so I’ll understand if you want to ignore the question again.

    “The costs of higher energy prices now are infinitesimal compared to the long term costs.” Are you making a prediction? Forgive me but I prefer measurement and I take your guess with a grain of salt. You’d have to assume a lot of unlikely things for that belief to be true.

    “The evidence of global warming is abundantly clear. Melting ice caps, increased in ocean temps, early blooming of flowers, warmer weather species being found further north, the physics of carbon-dioxide trapping infrared radiation, etc. Also, the warming of the permafrost regions is releasing more CO2 from decaying organic matter.” This is funny. Pay scientists to find evidence of global warming and 97% will find it for you. I know because I used to be one of them. You’re right about the melting NORTHERN ice cap, but we have a growing SOUTHERN one you may have heard of? It’s probably also fair to point out that melting/expanding rates should be put in context of pre- and post-industrial (i.e. vs. CO2) rates. But, I know you’re not interested in greater understanding, just spouting talking points you heard somewhere.

    Both sides can henpeck local anecdotes, but that’s not science. Global warming is measured by, wait for it, global warming. And the fact is, the predictions of future global temperature have exceeded to a significant degree what the temperature has been measured to be. Scientists currently don’t know why the models are statistically failing, but they agree that their predictions were not correct.

    “Furthermore, as the ice caps shrink, they reflect less light/heat.” It makes no sense that a global warming alarmist would make this argument because it’s a case for accelerating warming. But as we know, we haven’t seen warming. It’s actually further evidence that the models have failed.

    The prudent thing to do is to get the science right and to wait before we destroy our economy and hurt the least among us, because right now, given how temps have responded (i.e. not responded) to the last decade and a half of increasing CO2, there appears to be very little to no danger.

  31. David Diano says:

    Matt-
    Lot’s of people have fallen ill (and died) from the increased heat, violent weather, flooding, etc.

    No. The costs of higher energy prices now are infinitesimal compared to the long term costs.

    The evidence of global warming is abundantly clear. Melting ice caps, increased in ocean temps, early blooming of flowers, warmer weather species being found further north, the physics of carbon-dioxide trapping infrared radiation, etc. Also, the warming of the permafrost regions is releasing more CO2 from decaying organic matter. Furthermore, as the ice caps shrink, they reflect less light/heat.

    This is called a positive feedback loop.

    Unsanctioned R-
    Kitrick is not a messenger. He’s only pretending to be one.

  32. Unsanctioned R says:

    Pounding the table and attacking the messenger are both are ways of arguing when the evidence is not on your side.

    Those who defend global warming still want to live in a theoretical world. Unfortunately for them what we have witnessed is that their predictions have not come true.

  33. Uh-oh says:

    Natural gas offsets a lot of CO2. It’s a big reason why U.S. CO2 production peaked in 2007 (we’re now 12% lower). China and India are the reasons for global increases in CO2 and they’ve given the rest of the world the finger on the issue.

    Fracking, which some find abhorrent, is what Obama wants states like PA to do more of to offset CO2.

  34. wonky says:

    You should judge science on its merits.

    But, an economist would be a step up from Al Gore. LOL.

  35. The day I start taking my climate science from an economist is the day I order eggs from the laundromat.

  36. Matt Balazik says:

    David,
    This is not a religious argument. What about the DATA do you disagree with? Do you believe that the climate predictions have been correct???

    “What about the education consumers (aka children) who could have used taxes from fracking to improve their schools and education?” This money is infinitesimal compared to what everyone pays through higher energy costs. I don’t think you meant to step there.

    Can you produce one person who has fallen ill because of the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere? If so, I suggest calling the New England Journal of Medicine.

    Are you always so hyperbolic in your defense of dying theories?

  37. Matt-
    What about the “consumers” of all the pollution (air, land and water)?

    What about the consumers of health care services who are getting treated for the toxic effects?

    What about the education consumers (aka children) who could have used taxes from fracking to improve their schools and education?

    BTW, here is why your link (and Dr. Ross McKitrick is full of crap)

    “McKitrick is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance’s Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that “Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”. — Wikipedia

    The guy is an economist, not a scientist. His interpretation of science is that the readings don’t matter since “God” will adjust any trend lines.

    Check and mate !

    Thanks for playing.

  38. KingOfSpades says:

    The only way Wolf might be able to hand the race to Corbett- go against the coal industry.

  39. Corbett is fighting for the consumer. The energy consumer and the one who purchases products at the market for which energy was an input to production/delivery.

    That would seem to me to be pretty populist and responsible given the unreliability of climate forecasts vs. today’s temperature measurements.

    Anyone who’d like to know more about CO2’s affect on climate and how the UN’s climate predictions can now be shown to have failed, I highly recommend this truly scientific, 35 min. video for policymakers:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30/ross-mckitricks-presentation-to-fos/#more-110508

  40. Kevin-

    The answer to you question is “No”.

    Corbett is deeply unpopular and Wolf doesn’t need to make any statements that have any content other than “I’m not Corbett”.

    His bumper stickers and election day signs could just be
    “Vote Wolf ! He’s not Tom Corbett”

  41. Kevin says:

    I wonder if Tom Wolf will ever have to really take a position in this race and speak with some details. Let’s get past the Jeep.

  42. “Gov. Corbett cannot see a way in which the EPA regulations can help Pennsylvanians.”

    This is not a surprise.

    Corbett hasn’t seen a way to help Pennsylvanians during his entire term (unless they were big donors).

Comments are closed.