Subscriber Login



Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain PDF Print E-mail

Letter to the Editor:

It is really too bad that one can only put 600 words in a letter to the editor. If I had more words to use, I could have explained in a form Dr. Moe and Mr. Laadt could understand. So forgive me here, I only have 600 words again.

The reason for my last letter (June 19) was in light over what has recently been happening with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), National Security Agency and AP wiretapping scandals. These began during President Obama’s watch. He holds the highest title in the land, so it is his burden.

The left will immediately point the finger to a rich executive who ran a company into the ground destroying jobs, and here it is no different. These scandals show a direct violation of our rights as noted in the Constitution.

And Dr. Moe, given your dealings with the Drug Enforcement Agency back in 2008 and how they unfairly targeted you as per the front page Vilas County News-Review article several years ago, I would think that you of all people would understand.

I never stated in my letter that no other presidents share the blame for the current predicament. I believe that George W. Bush ranks right up there as one of the worst presidents. He signed the Patriot Act into law, which was a major catalyst to remove our freedoms. I do not deny that nor will I ever deny that.

As a matter of fact, former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold was the only congressman to vote against this act because of what could happen. Too bad he isn’t still in office.

The problem is that everything needs to start somewhere. When Obama ran, he promised a transparent administration and hope and change. We were in a terrible recession, the economy was nearly destroyed and the people sought him to bring us out of the darkness. Similar things have happened in history before. A removal of rights preceded those events.

With regards to the socialist — totalitarian comment that Mr. Laadt pointed out, even he admits that there were “oppressive monarchs and remnants of a rigid feudal economic system.” While it was not a socialist government as we know it, it was certainly totalitarian. I used that terminology so that people could make the connection that in a socialist country, everyone but government is poor. And to be truthful, people still immigrate to the United States today to get away from these socialist-totalitarian governments.

How much has the national debt gone up by under Obama’s watch anyways? Money was not given away like Franklin Delano Roosevelt did where it was primarily public works to give people jobs. Instead, it is given away to useless entities like Solyndra and “obamaphones.” The latter being a method to buy votes.

But Mr. Laadt and Dr. Moe feel that it is all just crazy rhetoric from the right, hell bent on making a scene and demonizing Obama. I also recall that there was “rhetoric” and “conspiracy theories” when conservative and tea party groups were bringing up IRS abuses over a year ago leading up to the presidential election. Keep the opposition down, and they can’t put a good fight up.

The truth of the matter is that Obama is subjugating us instead of turning away from the policies of Bush like he said he would. Might be a strong word for Mr. Laadt, but that is exactly what is happening. But hey, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Tim Stolar

Sugar Camp

Tuesday, July 02, 2013 1:34 PM
 

Comments  

 
-8 #118 2013-08-16 11:48
One more thing...

I mentioned it earlier, but want to impress upon the amounts of H2O produced during combustion, and the lack of modern emissions efficiency.

When one gallon of gasoline is burned, the combustion process creates about .8 gallons of H2O.

The funny thing, is that NO ONE addresses the fact that H2O is the LARGEST greenhouse gas and worst contributing offender. It blows away CO2 by comparison. But, it is short lived as it eventually falls as rain.

As engines become less efficient due to emission controls, they are converting that energy to heat. That heat goes into the atmosphere, but it is only a burst where it will eventually be absorbed or radiated away from the planet.

If you add in H2O and heat burst together, it has far more lasting effects than CO2. This proves my point that it is all political agenda, not science.

(The heat burst thing is what Dr. Mueller and I were conversing about.)
Quote
 
 
-7 #117 2013-08-16 11:27
Thanks Frank,

After all, I am an extremist that forms my opinion around science.

I am convinced that we have oil under the ground here in northern Wisconsin. The problem is that it is DEEP underground... VERY deep. I have actually seen crude oil coming through cracks in the ground where rock outcrops are. Not much was coming out, but it was there which means there is more.

For instance, at the old Adventure Mine in the U.P. (an old copper mine) you can actually see crude coming out. On one of the stopes inside it, there is this black stuff coming down the side and dribbling down to the floor. And that one is only about 200 feet below the surface.

The point is that it is here and can be feasible to produce when the technology catches up. But I don't think it will ever be feasible if the political landscape doesn't improve.
Quote
 
 
-24 #116 Frank Gabl 2013-08-15 12:57
Tim,

It's nice to see your credentials in action. That's some good stuff you've been throwing out there.

Frank
Quote
 
 
-6 #115 2013-08-15 12:05
cont'd

It is a no-brainer, right? Use the "greenhouse" gas to get what is needed, and be able to safely store it back to where it came from.

But there is an inherent problem. That problem is politics.

It takes time to develop a new technology. The problem is that the political landscape, particularly progressives, have declared "war" on the energy sector. Any time someone wants to try something new, not only does it take time to develop, but it takes far more time to be able to legally do it due to permitting or simply because the government put their foot on it because of the progressive push.

My point is that the best way to do anything is work together using scientific approaches, not political approaches.

Perhaps the two of us can use these discussions as a building block rather than a divider.
Quote
 
 
-6 #114 2013-08-15 11:55
cont'd

I have knowledge of a new system being developed that could drastically increase production from low / no producing wells. While the system is still being kept confidential, what I can say is this:

Oil has what is called a miscible fluid, that is, a fluid that acts like a solvent to strip the oil from surfaces. It so happens that CO2 is a miscible fluid of crude oil.

By using a "sequestration type" technology, an oil field can dramatically increase production by injection into an old well for capture of crude in another old well. As a byproduct, the CO2 stays underground while the crude is pumped up.

In general, wells only extract about 20% of the oil in the ground. The rest remains trapped. Technology like fracking has been able to increase the "flow" of oil, but still a lot of oil is left under the ground.

cont'd
Quote
 
 
-23 #113 Frank Gabl 2013-08-15 11:34
Jeff,

Before I rest my case, I want to say that I nearly had a grabber last night when I read what you said: “This fact may offer some insight: that the controversy seems to be less about the scientific and more about the political.” Now that’s progress!

But I still want to address the comment you made pertaining to the AccuWeather reference and the fact that your “man-made” global warming belief is debunked in the same paragraph which states that the one degree increase since 1975 is significant: “According to NASA, (the government!) a one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. (Here’s the money line) In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago."

Cont. below:
Quote
 
 
-24 #112 Frank Gabl 2013-08-15 11:29
Continued:

So without sounding too much like a smart alec, can you give me even a wild guess as to how many man-made fossil fuel-burning engines were in existence that were responsible for causing the cooling and warming surrounding the Little Ice Age or the period 20,000 years ago?

Now to rest my case. While searching for a reference to illustrate just how much of a player the Club of Rome is in all of this and the fact that global warming indeed was fabricated to rally the world around a common cause, this fell into my lap.

Note that I not only just found this last night but it’s from Australia in February.

Please watch in its entirety and note all of the quotes by various people from Bush 41 to commie Gorbachev.

Eye-opening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ8f4RxGbP8
Quote
 
 
-6 #111 2013-08-15 11:27
Jeff,

See, that is why I liked what he had to say. It was not political, it was scientific. He used scientific approaches to determine the results, not an end political agenda, which to me, was very refreshing.

Because to be honest, the emission controls (again, speaking on engines) do not address the CO2 which has been deemed to be the cause. As emission controls become tighter, more CO2 and H20 are being produced to make things "cleaner" (H2O is also a 'greenhouse' gas). No one goes for end result efficiency, and unfortunately it was political motivation. This is precisely why I don't buy into the global warming theory in general, but do buy into what Dr. Mueller found.

I am sure you have heard of CO2 sequestration (pumping CO2 deep underground where it is stable due to pressures). What might interest you is that many oil companies are looking at this as a method to extract oil.

cont'd
Quote
 
 
+19 #110 Jeff Laadt 2013-08-14 19:06
Tim
I have no reason not to believe you.

It is clear from the NYT article I referenced that Dr. Muller maintains a proper scientific skepticism towards "most alarmist claims". And that is all for the good (depending upon how "alarmist" is defined.)

Still, it is also clear from the very first paragraph of his op-ed that he does not challenge the reality of warming nor the fact that humans are primarily responsible.

I was aware that Berkeley Earth was (surprisingly) partially funded by the Koch Bros. among many others. This fact may offer some insight: that the controversy seems to be less about the scientific and more about the political. My sense is that Muller believes the issue to be somewhere between "hoax" and "alarm" and that the science, the basics of which are generally agreed upon, is still evolving.

As a progressive, I can live with that.

Jeff Laadt
Quote
 
 
-8 #109 2013-08-14 17:53
Jeff,

I too have seen Dr. Muller's reasearch, and in fact I have even discussed his findings with him on a one-on-one level. I can send you all of the correspondece I have had with him if you don't believe me.

One thing to take away from his reasearch (actually two things, but not related) are the following:

1) His outlook is not grim. He confirmed that yes, there does appear to be a warming pattern happening, but not to the extent that others think. And, his research regarding the consequences of the warming does not follow suit to the usual doomsday senarios played out by the progressives. Something that I have stated numerous times on these threads.

2) His research was partly funded by the Koch Bros! You know, those guys that are enemies of the world.
Quote
 

Add comment

Comments exceeding 1,000 characters will not be accepted. Please refrain from using texting language and spell out all words. All comments are reviewed and must be approved before they are posted.


Security code
Refresh