As to Bush, the issue really came up for judicial nominations when Republicans tried to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominess because Democrat obstruction was so bad that they were unable to fill a large number of judicial vacanies that really needed to be filled. The Gang of 14 prevented this so it never happened.
Ironically, Obama is having even more trouble getting vacancies filled. And he has a supposedly filibuster-proof majority, but the Republicans insist upon complaining about each and every one, even when the nominee has a Republican sponsor from that state. And the Democrats are completely pathetic so they don't do anything about it.
Neither of these are viable alternatives at this point nor are they close to being so.
Both are extemely expensive, unreliable, and inefficient forms of energy that, especially in the case of wind, eat up massive amounts of land and come with their own sets of hazards. People near wind turbines often complain of the noise pollution and there is the issue of birds flying into the turbines. Land used for wind turbines can't be used for something else, which isn't a big deal in a place like west Texas, but may be a huge deal in other places.
If well placed (like not in major migratory flyways), the number of birds killed by turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by domestic cats or by cars. And the land that they sit on can be dual-purposed, such as for grazing (probably also in those areas like west Texas). They can also be used off the coast, but people like the Kennedys don't like the idea of wind turbines five miles off that would obstruct their view when using binoculars.
There are a lot of issues with wind or solar, but they're being exaggerated.
One of the great ironies is that many of those who support Climate change often chastise people like me as not caring about the poor, yet, those same people tell poor African nations that for the sake of the planet they must use wind and solar and can't use their plentiful oil and coal and, thus, in effect demand those countries sit on their resources and remain in poverty.
The only area that I've seen people insist upon using solar or wind energy in Africa is in remote areas. It was even specifically discussed in Swindle and an economist decried the climate change people for pushing solar power upon those poor Africans. Then they went out to a remote village and explained that it would be better for the villagers to be able to use an electrical generator that required them to buy oil that would be delivered to them over hundreds of miles of dirt roads instead of one that's solar powered.
Most of Africa doesn't have coal or oil resources. The bulk of the coal in Africa is in just a few nations, like South Africa. And most of the oil goes straight to the West.
I suppose I might revisit the Climate Change issue when those guys at East Anglian can explain why I should trust anything they say at this point.
The guys at East Anglia are one of about a bajillion different groups working on climate change and sources of global climate change data. So far, out of the 1000 e-mails, I've seen one that mentions using a trick to obscure data. That trick is inexcusable. But it doesn't mean that everything else that was done by other people at other sites is wrong. There are a couple e-mails that direct others to delete e-mails which also sounds dodgy, but not something that I'd argue is fraudulent or means that whatever data those researchers might be talking about is false. One e-mail mentions wishing physical harm on Patrick Michaels - who
lied before Congress about Hansen's climate change models in order to discredit them. (Hansen presented three models based on separate assumptions and listed one as most likely. Michaels ignored two of the models - including the one that was most likely and also the one that matched best to the inputs - to present the third and say that Hansen was being alarmist.)
Yeah, the Chinese aren't quiet ready to harm themselves over it. And this was before Climategate. Hard to believe they'd support anything that didn't exempt them. Both China and India have consistently been opposed to such regulation and are currently exempt from Kyoto. So, Chinese opposition is no surprise.
And the leaking of the Danish Texts pissed alot of nations off after learning they may be about to screwed by the Danes, Brits, and Americans.
Can't imagine why they don't want to take it in the rear for first world nations.
Yeah, I'm not expecting a lot from Copenhagen - again. *sigh*
China and India want it to be non-binding and the Western powers don't want to pay (much) to the developing nations to develop sustainably or for mitigation.
If I was really optimistic, I'd think that maybe the compromise would be that China and India would accept binding levels in exchange for more money except that the money needs to go to other developing nations. China is already getting billions to develop cleaner tech and a lot of it is going to projects that were already slated by the Chinese.
Edited by Nick Soapdish, 14 December 2009 - 04:06 PM.
