Better air. Better airlines.
Click here to see the offerings of today's Buffalo News Opinion pages. They include:
- Action on climate change
This time, we’re all going to the moon.
The climate change bill that narrowly passed the House of Representatives Friday recalls nothing so much as President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 call for the United States to send a man to the moon within a decade. [Video.]
There are differences, of course. While Kennedy’s challenge was mostly about inspiration and politics, the task before us now is about planetary survival. And, instead of watching intently on TV, we are all going to take part in the bold venture, soaring to success or crashing to failure.
Related comments from The Burlington (Vt.) Free Press, The Lufkin (Texas) Daily News, The Houston Chronicle, The New York Times, Thomas Friedman, Andrew Sullivan and The Salt Lake Tribune.
- Toughen airline rules
The Federal Aviation Administration’s quick action to revamp rules for airlines may offer small comfort to the families of Flight 3407 victims and can never return those 50 persons to their loved ones and friends, but it shows that the agency has learned a valuable if costly lesson.
Related comments from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Greenville (N.C.) News, the Watertown (N.Y.) Daily Times and this really sobering post from The New York Times Freakonomics blog:
Isn’t it great to know that you have the newest, least-experienced, exhausted, starving young cockpit crew that this regional airline could find? Good for you!
- Universal health care is a blessing, not a curse
Williamsville's Brian Pawley explains what Americans are missing by not having the kind of universal health care he took for granted living the United Kingdom.
- State will take steps to ensure group home safety
Gladys Carrion, commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, promises improvements in the wake of the death of a young woman who worked at a group home in Lockport.
-- George Pyle/The Buffalo News
George....here is what Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway CEO (owner of The Buffalo News) and an Obama supporter had to say about Cap and Trade, a key element of the Waxman/Markey bill:
"I think if you get into the way it was written, it's a huge tax and there's no sense calling it anything else. I mean, it is a tax. And it's a fairly regressive tax. If we buy permits, essentially, at our utilities, that goes right into the bills of the utility customers, and an awful lot of people in Iowa, in Oregon, and Utah, and places where we are, very poor people are going to pay a lot more money for electricity. So I think that can be improved."
from an interview with CNBC on Wednesday, June 24th
Posted by: Neil | July 02, 2009 at 01:31 PM
Obama's own words said utility bills will skyrocket.
Many say double or more.
It's time for Obama to step down he's way over his pay grade. If he dosen't step down then he should at least step aside. He can pack up his teleprompters and travel the country and speak to high school kids. He is a disaster for this country and his lack of leadership has broken the spirit of our economy.
People need to ban together and remove him Pelosi and Reid from any position of power.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: jd | July 02, 2009 at 03:26 PM
I would like to know how many years of falling temperatures will it take for the News to wake up? How many contrary scientists will it take for you and everyone else to see that maybe there isn't a consensus after all? How many times does the UN have to get caught "cooking the books" to gain funding for their causes before people open their eyes?
Why no mention of how the EU is doing with their Green Economy. Currently Spain has an 18% unemployment rate; why in the world would we want to emulate them?
This bill is nothing but a Federal power grab which will pick and choose winners and losers, based on the demands of environmental extremists and the largest of corporations. Funny how Al Gore and GE/NBC stand to make the most money isn't it?
Posted by: Dave Marx | July 02, 2009 at 06:50 PM
Universal Health Care Is A Curse.
I watched my uncle in constant pain for over a year while waiting on a list for a hip operation. He was 67 and he died in his wheel chair waiting. I believe he died of the constant pain.
I was later told in confidence that his delay was simply because they deemed him to old.
Universal Health Care is a very cold calculating business where others decide if you live or die.
Posted by: I Know Better | July 02, 2009 at 07:16 PM
According to press reports, the Waxman/Markey bill contains provisions which will shield the poor and lower middle class from increases in utility bills through credits and discounts. Of couse, the rest of us will be expected to pay for this act of mercy by paying more on our utility bills or in taxes. The march toward socialism continues with Obama beating the drum.
Posted by: Don H | July 02, 2009 at 09:36 PM
Hmm, the sound of chirping crickets. Nobody wants to answer my questions.
I predict that there will be name calling and other sundry attacks, but no answers. Oh, that's right, the sciense is settled, no discussion allowed, so sayith the Prophet Goreacle.
There's an interesting article in that conservative paper, The Rolling Stone, titled "The Great American Bubble Machine". You should read that one George.
Posted by: Dave Marx | July 03, 2009 at 07:01 AM
Oops, bad spelling; too early, not enough coffee.
Posted by: Dave Marx | July 03, 2009 at 07:05 AM
I don't need to call anyone names to tell them they are wrong. Actually it's not me, but the actual consensus of scientists saying your wrong... Quote...
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
Heres the link..
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Maybe you should take your scientific opinion and refute all the evidence with a paper... Have it peer reviewed and your assertions published discrediting global warming... Do you have a paper and evidence of this?
Posted by: wil | July 03, 2009 at 01:36 PM
Why was the EPA gvt. sponsored climate study held back and not released ?
I guess we know the answer' it called into question what Obama & Pelosi has been force feeding the public.
It's time for Obama to step down he's out of his league and this country is starting to wake up to this fact.
We can't trust this country's future to these rank amateures the downside is to dangerous.
We don't have years we have months at best to make the changes, for the good of our counrty Obama must step down.
Going from an unknown state senator who couldn't pay his bills to President in a few short years makes for great press but also puts our once great country in grave danger and just can't be tolerated any longer.
Posted by: jd | July 03, 2009 at 03:53 PM
That's some interesting circular logic there. To refute my arguments that the UN is lacking in credibility, you use the UN's own study that claims a consensus. From their own mission statement, to determine the "risk of human-induced climate change" tells me that they were specifically looking for it to the exclusion of other causes.
If you want to see peer reviewed science, check out www.co2science.org
I don't claim to be a scientist, are you? But when I see scientists claiming with absolute certainty, what's ahead in 100 years, my well refined BS meter goes off. There are plenty of credible scientists refuting the so-called consensus. So again, knowing their track record, why should I believe the UN?
Posted by: Dave Marx | July 03, 2009 at 07:18 PM
The IPCC is a political document, not a scientific one. The IPCC has come under fire for accuracy in the past- remember the "hockey stick" graph? It rarely (if ever) discloses its methodology, and more than a few scientists involved with the project have withdrawn support. Using the IPCC paper to butress an argument is not the wisest idea.
Posted by: Rick | July 04, 2009 at 10:47 AM
There is plenty of evidence out there...You attack the UN but what you are really doing is attacking the scientists who studied this. Some scientists refute GW but some are being paid off as well....
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/5720655/ExxonMobil-funds-climate-change-sceptics.html
After years of suppressing it they finally acknowledge the science
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/13/exxon-finally-admits-global-warming-is-real/
The scientists who refute are few and far between... Why don't you post some links backing up your theories...
Rick, your modus operandi is simple.. attack the messenger not the message...There are plenty of scientific studies
backing up global warming... Bush has even admitted this...
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010612climate0612netp2.asp
Took him long enough to get but apparently you still don't...
Here are some more scientific studies...
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
or.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
or read about the IPCC here and look at their evidence...
http://www.ipcc.ch/
or NASA'S
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
Perhaps you believe these scientists.....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA
Posted by: wil | July 04, 2009 at 01:24 PM
Here are some more links..
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/climate/pdf/NSF_Climate_Change_Report.pdf
or...
http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
or...
http://cirrus.ucsd.edu/~pierce/crd/globalwarming/
or...
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/
Posted by: wil | July 04, 2009 at 01:44 PM
Ah, nice; The Creationist Museum? Couldn't you have found a site denying the Holocaust? I've read plenty about the IPCC and NASA for that matter. What's your point? As far as Wickepedia goes, did you know that it's blocked in most middle and high schools, because of their inaccuracies?
Woods Hole lost quite a bit of credibility with me when they put out the press release a few years back claiming to have found the "Smoking Gun of AGW". When I went looking for the peer reviewed paper it referenced, I found it hadn't made it through the process yet. So, I kept checking and guess what? Not only did it not pass peer review, but it ended up being pulled altogether. Oops! But no retraction of the press release of course.
And I guess all the 33,000 scientists who are skeptics are being bought off also. Or the scientists who pulled their names off the IPCC report. Wow, Exon has an awful lot of money to throw around, huh?
In the 20's and 30's it was Eugenics that had a consensus. In the 70's, it was the coming ice age. My point is consensus doesn't mean squat in science. It's either proven and becomes a law, or it stays a theory. Until that happens, it's up for debate. That's how science works.
Posted by: Dave Marx | July 04, 2009 at 06:14 PM
Dave, Whats your point? The Holocaust was real, why would i post a site denying it..The Creationist Museum shows not all scientists are credible and as far as Exxon, if you didn't know they have been making record profits then you have been living under a rock..so yeah, they have a lot of money to throw around...They fund scientists to disprove this theory!! There is nothing wrong with trying to disprove the theory, the problem is they can't...Please post the papers of scientists who have..
Global Warming threatens their profit, hence create opposition to growing consensus that threatens their income.
Wikipedia does have some flaws but they do require citations...
Please cite your info on the numbers you quote. Sorry if i don't take your word for it but if you don't cite your work it is not credible...
Did you look at the other peer reviewed papers at the .edu websites? Probably not.. you only look at what supports your causes...That is why i would humbly ask that you post your links..that way you provide evidence to support your claims. I would really like to look at all the evidence as well so i can make a better judgment also or refute it with evidence.
To the Eugenics point. A consensus among whom.. White males... As you know, Women had just obtained the right to vote.. Civil rights was years away... So who contributed to this consensus on Eugenics? The Monkey/Scopes trial scientists?
Consensus means everything..definition of consensus means a majority agree..Everyday more information and studies are being done...Man is altering the climate by introducing CO2 into the atmosphere at unprecedented levels..To deny this fact you would have to completely ignore the science and experiments done documenting this...
Posted by: wil | July 05, 2009 at 11:08 AM
http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html
"The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and
books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research
that became available after the IPCC's self imposed
deadline of May 2006."
More peer reviewed papers here:
http://climatesci.org/
http://www.co2science.org
http://climateresearchnews.com/
About consensus:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
About Eugenics: (It was the domain of science, governments, and the intelligencia)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dh23eu.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/eugenics
Lastly, I never said the amount of co2 being pumped into the atmosphere is in dispute, nor do I disagree that we may be altering the climate. What I disagree with are the alarmist conclusions. The recent paper put out by this administration was nothing but an Alarmist propoganda piece, written by a PR firm, which portrayed all the worst case scenarios from computer models as established fact. Squelching science by ignoring contrary opinions also sets my BS meter off.
Posted by: Dave Marx | July 05, 2009 at 07:11 PM
Dave, I looked at your links.. I find the NIPCC report not credible.. One only has to research the author of the report to find the true agenda of the report... Dr. Fred Singer!
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Stohrer-Singer.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Hazeltine-Singer.html
Secondly, The Heartland Institute funded this...or Exxon Mobil did....
"ExxonMobil’s reports show it has granted $791,500 to Heartland since 1998"
Link...
http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.com/2008/12/heartland-institute.html
This site debunks NIPCC claims....
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/
This report was written by two guys...C'mon Dave....Is that your consensus...
Here is Singer's wiki..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer...
He also denies CFC's cause Ozone depletion...
The other author is a geographer...
The worst thing is that you have to pay for their nonsense... Their report costs 154 bucks... The IPCC is free viewing for all....
Not credible at all...
Posted by: wil | July 06, 2009 at 12:40 PM
How predictable. Let's start here.
"ExonMobil has granted the Heartland Institute $791,500 since 1998" which is less than 5% of their budget. The Heinz Kerry Foundation gave James Hansen $250,000 also, while he was at NASA, and just before he denounced the Bush administration. So??
The report of the NIPCC is free; it's only $154 if you want the hard copy. If you had read any of it, you would have seen that. The report is a free download from numerous places.
So being hired by a company to do research and actually being paid is terrible; but getting hired by a left wing foundation is ok.
"realclimate.org debunks NIPCC report"
http://climatesci.org/ debunks realclimate.org
I gave you over 30,000 to prove non-consensus.
We can go back and forth forever. I guess we should agree to disagree. You can continue to believe the alarmists, and I'll continue to let my BS meter guide me. As my daddy always told me, "follow the money and never argue over religeon".
Posted by: Dave Marx | July 06, 2009 at 01:21 PM
Wait, so publications from sources like UCS and Think Progress, which clearly have an agenda, are unbiased, but if someone cites Dr Singer you shrug off the study due to bias? I think I'm beginning to see the problem. You have a solution in search of a problem, and you've bought into the climate change religion. Funny how you cite one organization that has CO2 as a problem, but you've conveniently ignored the EPA's finding to the contrary- a mindset much like the current White House.
Posted by: Rick | July 06, 2009 at 07:39 PM
Like I posted before if only funding was available to prove global cooling 90% of these Ph.D 's would change their minds over night. It's all about grant money. New York city just had their coolest June in almost 100 years, even Phoenix had lower temps. Everybody agrees the temps. have been cooling for more than 10 years now.
What ever became of all the experts reports of global cooling in the 70s ? Some of these same so called experts that predicted global cooling now predict global warming. Most of the pools in WNY are empty and covered, WHY ? Because it's too freaking cold outside, we could use some warming, please.
Why did our gvt. cover up the latest EPA report ? It was gvt. funded but witheld from the people, the reason is simple, it showed no warming trend and would fly in the face of Obama's Cap and tax scam.
Posted by: jd | July 06, 2009 at 07:47 PM
Et al..... The Think Progress website was just a news report quoting the CEO of EXXON Mobil admitting global warming...No agenda in that link.. just quoting what the guy said...
The UCS link had a bunch of peer reviewed papers to look at...thats why i posted it... you must have missed it if you even looked at all...
Dr Singer always takes the sides of big corporations just like he defended the tobacco industry...
Secondly the supposed suppressed report was written by Eric Carlin.. an economist at the EPA who wrote this on his own initiative.. it was one of hundreds of reports written by the many scientists they have Working at the EPA... This is the view of one man not the entire EPA... to boot, he really isn't qualified to report on climate being an economist and all. Here is his web page and the report he wrote...among other papers...
http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/
Lastly, How quickly you forget about the Bush EPA report suppression..
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1653
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0619-01.htm
Obama did not suppress anything.. This was an internal decision made by the EPA...Unlike the Bush White House, which eagerly suppressed much of the findings reported by the EPA....Hypocritical much?
Posted by: wil | July 07, 2009 at 01:48 AM
Well, I thought I was done, but...
The fact that our Pres loaded his cabinet with total left wing nut jobs doesn't ring a bell? Every one of them has a history of environmental extremism, not a moderate in the bunch. But we're supposed to believe they'll be fair and balanced? Ding, ding, ding.. sorry, that's that pesky BS meter going off again.
Eric Carlin is an Economist, but also has a degree in Physics.
Take a look at the Waxman/Malarkey bill and you'll see that Exon Mobil is making a helluvalot of money in free credits. So is Goldman Sachs, GE, etc. The corporate handouts are huge. Everyone gets lots of credits, except you and me. Of course they're true believers. That bill is way too big to read, but here's an article about it.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTc1MmVhMGYxY2UzNzAwMTJlODBjZjg2NDJjNmM2MWE=&w=MA==
Why no comment on the consensus issue? You kept asking, and then silence.
Posted by: Dave Marx | July 07, 2009 at 07:51 AM
I am not crazy about the bill either...there continues to be handouts to big corporations as you say...Republicans/Democrats have their corrupt members and continue to sell us down the river...If i knew how to fix it i would offer up my ideas...As far as the consensus...Well if you go to the site (the one you posted,NIPCC) where the petitioners have signed you will see that only 3 percent of those signed on have any experience in climatology.. In fact, half the scientists are engineers or medical doctors... Very disingenuous... Most aren't PHD's either, In fact if i signed i could be on that petition based on my science degree... Look on the last pages of the report for the breakdown on the petitioners and their degrees...Anyone with a college degree in science can sign it(even with a "bachelors" only) which many of the signers are)....It is not a consensus of climate experts rather it is what it says.. a petition of people with science degrees
Posted by: wil | July 07, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Not exactly sure what you're looking at wil, but these are the links I posted; the first one contains over 8000 PHD's. I don't ever remember, although you can correct me if you'd like, where there's another listing like it. Not being a climatologist doesn't mean much; would you ask a group of astrologers if they were believers?
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3
Posted by: Dave Marx | July 07, 2009 at 02:47 PM
I guess that the 31,478 American scientists who signed the petition denying man-made global warming must all be right-wing nut-jobs who are employed by the Bush family and/or the global coal and oil corporations.
Many of these scientists are like Arthur B. Robinson, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Robinson says that “World temperatures fluctuate all the time. The temperature of the Earth has risen many times, far more times than carbon dioxide could drive it. There is no experimental evidence that humans are changing the environment…”
The high priest Barack Obama better start an Inquisition real soon, before more heretics like Robinson join the 31,478 faithless scientists who deny the holy words spoken in the epic movie produced by Al of Gore.
Only the gospel according to the apostle Al of Gore can be considered as the true way to global salvation. After all, Al of Gore has proclaimed to all global citizens that the debate is over. In other words, his holy gospel and the man-made global warming creed signed by 600 U.N. scientists must be considered infallible. Therefore, it must be so.
Posted by: OPMike | July 08, 2009 at 11:18 AM