<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Obama vs. Romney: Who has the best energy plan? ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-25T12:57:31-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Romney was correct: North America, not the USA, produces 15 mbpd]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-79612]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;&quot;&quot;...citing U.S. oil production at 15 million barrels per day, according to the Washington Post, when the reality is 6.2 million barrels per day &quot;&quot;&quot;No, that Wa Post article does not state Romney made such a statement.  HTranscripts are available as to what  Gov Romney actually did say in the energy speech in Hobbs, NM, where he repeated referred to North America as an entity, and said, &quot;Were producing in North America about 15 million barrels a day&quot;, about which the Governor was entirely correct. http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/08/24/transcript-mitt-romney-presents-energy-plan-in-new-mexico/]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-79612]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mheslep]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:48:26 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Seems that I recalling similar rhetoric decades ago...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78713]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...we were all supposed to be doomed by 1978, 1984, 1990...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78713]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2012 04:46:26 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Alas, 2020 is not a rain check date, it's a prescription for disaster]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78711]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Cosserat,It's fine for us to make an intellectual agreement to revisit this in 2020 to look at the data again. But in the meantime, if you are incorrect, the results will be quite disastrous in that the continued GHG emissions for another 8 years will make the atmospheric carbon pool large enough to in all probability create climatic havoc for hundreds if not thousands of years before natural or human influences can sequester enough carbon again to make a return to pre-industrial levels.  Just as a general on the battlefield has to go on incomplete information, experience, hunches and a little luck, human societies are going to have to take action before all the evidence is in on the exact forcing dynamics of climate change is completely understood. Therefore, it seems wisest to aggressively pursue reduced carbon emissions now while we have a chance to impact the processes, backing off later if and only if your predictions, however unlikely they are, turn out to be correct.  Doing nothing now will not provide us an option to start that process in 2020 as you suggest would be possible if you are wrong. Such dallying could be unfortunate at best, catastrophic at worst.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78711]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[klassman6]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:18:31 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Elections]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78654]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Lets hope they finally set up an energy plan that takes into consideration the climate change and a renewable policy. IT solutions for renewables]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78654]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Maria Sierra]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 06:52:51 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Solar output]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78549]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[ Much if not all of the current temperature increases parallel increases in solar output...That's pretty funny.  If anything average solar output has been declining slightly since the 1950's.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78549]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[riverat1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:11:58 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Reply to klassman6]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78557]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[klassman6, I wasn't trying to imply the added CO2 wasn't coming from human sources and that it wasn't a problem, just that the total CO2 is what's important.  I've known about the c12/c13 isotope ratio issue for at least 5 years.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78557]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[riverat1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:06:52 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Most people do not understand the difference.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78551]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What the difference is between needed business regulation and over regulation.Needed regulation is the FAA saying that all commercial airliners must be carpeted with fire resistant carpeting that meets certain pollution emissions standards when smoldering to limit choking smoke in the event of a fire.Over regulation is the FAA under the Obama administration saying that replacement carpet must meet the same standards AND be made of all natural materials obtained from only sustainable sources.Seeing that no such carpet existed, that new regulation effectively stopped the replacement of worn carpets on commercial planes until such a product was created.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78551]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 06:41:10 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[See you back in 2020]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78524]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Hi Klassman and Riverat,Yes, the temperature record COULD go either way from now on, especially if our trustworthy 'climategate' friends at the University of East Anglia manage to RETROFIT THEIR STATISTICS. If the temperature continues to go up alarmingly, as predicted by Hansen etc., you will be right and there will be a serious problem. If, as I believe will happen, it stays within the dotted red 'tunnel' lines on my graph, exhibiting a RELATIVE downturn over the next 10-20 years, with a continuing long term average rise of only 0.41degC per CENTURY, then climate alarmism will be dead in the water.I know which I'm going to bet on.So, see both you guys back for a rain check in 2020...All the best.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78524]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[cosserat@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 05:04:03 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The amount of CO2 released by human activity is measurable...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78460]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...by looking at the carbon isotope ratios, which are different from carbon released from geologically sequestered coal beds, oil fields, etc. So while the physics of radiative transfer and the greenhouse effect does not change depending on the source of the atmospheric carbon, the source of that carbon is traceable through a combination of pretty good record keeping and carbon isotope ratios.  Both indicate that the amounts released through human activity are enough to trigger the climate changes we are experiencing and that the data is showing us.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78460]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[klassman6]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:41:41 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[As opposed to ...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78458]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[... a comment that ignores years of scientific research.  For the climate whether CO2 is &quot;man-made&quot; or not is beside the point.  The CO2 in our atmosphere has a significant effect on climate through it's effect on temperature and changes in the level are bound to affect climate.  It's built into the physics of the situation.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78458]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[riverat1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:20:37 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Wishful thinking.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78462]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[If the trend has drifted upwards alarmingly by 2020, it will be game set and match to the alarmists. But if, as many now believe, the trend is downwards...what then will the alarmists do for a living?Well, so far the discernible trend is upward so good luck with that.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78462]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[riverat1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:46:17 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Thanks]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78448]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Thank you klassman6.  I was debating whether to take the time to respond to cosserat but you did it for me.  I would like to point out that his TTACC site is using HadCRUT3 data and not the new HadCRUT4 product that does a better job of including the polar regions.  HadCRUT4 pretty much agrees with GISS now.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78448]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[riverat1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:42:54 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You are idealistic, not practical.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78418]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You're idealism is sweet but in the real world am I going to risk my meager assets trying to go against someone like BP?  Especially difficult would be cases where it's not possible to assign liability directly to an individual entity such as the asthma or heart disease caused by the pollution from vehicles.  Are you going to sue every driver? or all of the filling stations that enable them?If the company officers and shareholders had a more direct link to the consequences of their failures (read criminal liability) they would probably be more responsible but corporations are set up to shield those people from personal liability.  If corporations and business entities weren't allowed to externalize costs they'd be more responsible but that's pretty impossible to do.  I'd rather have government act in my stead.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78418]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[riverat1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:04:39 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[It couldn't be done here in the US]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78318]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[So the U.S. Export-Import Bank loaned money to Petrobras, Brazil's national oil company, so it would buy American equipment.If the US government made low-interest loans to an US oil company drilling in the US under similar circumstances, the outcry from greens complaining about US government oil industry subsidies would be deafening.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78318]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[zackers]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:08:39 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[There are still contervailing forces]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78330]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Government regulation is not the only solution to most problems. If BP had just let the oil spill go, they would have been sued out of existence under existing general tort laws. People would stop buying gas at their stations.Even &quot;The Jungle&quot; or &quot;Silent Spring&quot; were countervailing forces. They each were written by an individual, but they changed whole industries.Government needs to provide the general legal framework and the courts to settle disputes. But the more specific regulations get, the more government interferes with people and companies going about their productive business.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78330]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[zackers]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:03:05 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[&quot;Progressive&quot;?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78310]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Do tell.  Exactly what is the difference between the two policies beyond the fact that you seem to agree with one and disagree with the other?  They're both driven by ideology, and in Obama's case campaign contributions.  How is Romney's different?  (Other than that he hasn't yet had the opportunity to dispense subsidies to his energy pals)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78310]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnMcGrew@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 09 Sep 2012 06:02:30 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Re: &quot;Act accordingly&quot;]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78322]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I'm sure Barack Obama knows which side his bread is buttered too.  Although his energy policies are at least somewhat progressive, they aren't totally regressive as in the case of Mr. Romney.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78322]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[misterd2081@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2012 11:17:51 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Re: Timing is everything]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78313]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[During this presidential season Mr. Romney has denounced virtually all of the policies he enacted when he was governor of Mass and policies in which he stood for.  He's just another example of a politician who's been bought.  Romney advocates more oil and coal consumption, more drilling and oil spills, more air pollution, lung and other cancers, and more environmental damage.  Despite his rhetoric concerning North American energy independence, the United States will still be just as dependent on Middle East crude as it is now.  Not exactly a part of the world that loves America.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78313]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[misterd2081@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2012 10:09:28 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[OK, I can't resist]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78290]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[klassman6 here, and I can't let you and riverat1 have all the fun. Your wild assertions are just too irresistable to ignore!  First of all, your charting is of the HADCRUT data, instead of the GISS data, which automatically reduces the amount of global temperature anomalies due to the fact that the HADCRUT dataset under-represents the arctic temperature increases due to the paucity of data collection sites in the arctic, an area where the greatest surface temps are taking place.You talk about how there is only .4C degree per century increase knowing fully well that the rate is increasing over time, not just merrily oscillating away as you selectively define your mathematical description on your website. For instance, 2/3 of the warming from 1880 until the present has occurred since 1975, and global temps in the past decade was about .8C degrees warmer than the 1880-1920 mean. The decadal increases since the 1970s has been between 0.15 and 0.2C degrees.link: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal.pdfAnd then there's the statement about CO2 ppm not being very much, which you correctly attribute the annual average during the last decade as being only 1.8ppm/year, not 3. What you then fail to say is that in the 50s and 60s the annual  increase was less than 1ppm/year, or less than half of what it has been for the past 10 years.   Finally, I want to just remind you that your descriptive fit of curve for a relatively short historical duration is just that--a descriptive fit. It has no powers of attribution, is limited in its predictive power (I might say that the earliest section of the temperature curve does not fit your 67 year average anyway), and gives us no insight on the other preponderance of data in all other areas where scientists are monitoring changes attributable to climate change.I know that not of the above will persuade you, either, but, like I said, I couldn't resist!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78290]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[klassman6]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2012 09:52:21 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Out of Oil?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78308]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Since the 1970's there have been dire predictions on running out of oil. It was supposed to happen in the 1990's when it didn't happen then the expected date was moved forward over and over again. There is no doubt that the amount of oil to be found is not endless but it seems their predictions are not connected with the real improvements in the technology of oil recovery. Global warming, excuse me climate change is now the buzz word of the tree huggers. It's real interesting to note that one of the present proponents of this put out a book in the 1970-80's that the next ice age was coming. Climate changes as a method for extracting money from the government is always a popular past time. Build a better crisis and the world will throw money at your feet. The crisis should be far enough in the future that today's changes can't be expected for immediate improvements but close enough that it strikes fear into the uninformed.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11599-78308]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[DS1Roger]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2012 07:49:21 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

