We will lead the nation again.

17 Comment(s)

1. While I do feel that it’s a shame that we must resort to legislating these types of necessary changes, I am very pleased that the President made this one of his first acts. In his inaugural speech he stated “our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed.” Car companies, I think he may have been including you in there.

   As long as we’re subsidizing the “Big” 3, let’s make sure that they make some important changes to stay competitive globally. While 35 mpg is a noble goal, we should be trying to ditch mpg altogether when talking about efficiency. The phrase “Miles Per GALLON” of gasoline needs to go the way of the Edsel. We need to start measuring efficiency in electrons or miles per electrical re-charge.

   Thanks again Loren for speaking up on an issue that is seriously affecting us in San Diego, and the whole of California, as well as the other 17 states that have stated they will follow the newly enforced California standards.

   [Reply to this comment]

   Mike | Jan 27, 2009

2. I think 10 News should hire John Coleman.

   [Reply to this comment]

   brian | Jan 29, 2009

3. It would be nice to avert a worldwide environmental disaster, if such a thing existed. But more and more, the AGW thing is proving to be a hoax. Climate changes on it’s own cycle and man has nothing to do with it. And anything tied to reducing CO2 emissions is a money loser for the state of California. CO2 is not the bogey-man it has been made out to be by Al Gore and his legions of followers. If anything, we shoud be pumping more CO2 in the atmosphere to ward off the coming cooling cycle. The so-called “double-hockey stick” on which Al Gore pinned his fortunes as the head “town-crier” of global warming has been shown to be, to put it kindly, grossly wrong. During the same period Gore was telling us we are headed to our doom due to heating up the atmosphere, the planet Jupiter was experiencing increased weather in the form of more storms of geater intensity. Is our global warming also affecting Jupiter’s atmosphere? What is the common denominator? I fail to see how driving business out of Califirnia with tougher emissions standards is going to be good for the state’s economy.

   [Reply to this comment]

   Rey | Jan 29, 2009

4. Here are, perhaps, the unintended consequnces of tighter emissions standards.
   California will force gas stations to replace all of their pumps in favor of newer models that marginally improve the capture of gas vapor at the nozzle. The improvements will cost tens of thousands of dollars per station, and that may force hundreds of independents out of business:
   Dozens, and potentially hundreds, of gas stations around California are choosing to shut down rather than comply with a state mandate that would require owners to purchase new equipment to reduce vapor emissions at the pump.
   The requirement, known as Phase II in the state’s Enhanced Vapor Recovery Program, is set to go into effect in April. It requires gas station owners to individually purchase tens of thousands of dollars of equipment designed to prevent harmful vapors from escaping into the air when gasoline is pumped.
   But smaller retailers say that the requirement puts an unfair burden on businesses that don’t sell enough gasoline to offset the extra cost - and that don’t contribute much to the problem in the first place.
   California says they’re overreacting. Why, all they need to do is increase the price of gasoline:
   “We do calculate the cost of compliance with the regulation as related to emissions,” Stanich said. “These costs could be recovered by raising gasoline prices by an average 0.68 cents per gallon.”
   Well … that’s for the large chains. For the others?
   Lower-volume sellers would have to raise prices more to offset costs, he added.
   Got that? The big retailers can afford the required pumps because they only have to raise the cost of gasoline less than a cent a gallon. However, smaller retailers will have to increase their prices more, making them less competitive and forcing them to lose business. And what will that gain California?
   April’s regulations promise to cut what are known as reactive organic gas emissions by 7 tons per day statewide, but opponents point to the fact that California produces 2,322 tons of such gases per day.
   In other words, California will put dozens and perhaps hundreds of smaller retailers in order to reduce 0.0030146425495262704565030146425495 of the daily emissions in California. Jobs will be lost, tax revenues reduced, and consumer choice restricted, and California thinks that’s worth a 0.3% reduction in organic gas vapor. (via Instapundit and Autobloggreen)
   Again, how is driving business out of California good for the state economy?

   [Reply to this comment]

   Rey | Jan 29, 2009

5. I am blind so my husband read the above comments and I think they make more sense. If I ever believed that global warming was upon us I guess I would be able to agree with you,but I just can not believe the nonsense you and of course first of all Al Gore started with such alramists ideas. I personall believe that Al Gore started all this nonsense to relieve the pain of loosing the presidency. Further more, if he honestly believed his climate warming theory, he wouldn’t be adding to the carbon emissions byflyingall over the world in his private jet. Such hypocracy! I guess you don’t listen to your co-hort, John Coleman,but I wish you would

   [Reply to this comment]

   Pamela Bailey | Jan 29, 2009

6. Loren,

   At least you are trying but no one can save us from the cancerous greed ingrained in our society.

   The state department will soon be commandeering restaurants to convert to soup kitchens and the lines outside will be staggering. There will be riots, anarchy, and death. China, Russia, and the radical Muslim world will fight on US soil to seize our heritage. Start preparing us as best you can, do not talk about how to best dress your dog, roadkill, fashion, and entertainment. We need the real news now so to become better prepared for the end.

   [Reply to this comment]

   dave | Jan 30, 2009

7. There are very few things Schwarzenegger espouses with which I agree, but AB 32 is one of them.
   It baffles me how otherwise intelligent people can ignore the scientific evidence of global warming.
   It confounds me even further that anyone would think it’s a bad idea to clean up the environment.
   Thank you for your blog Loren.

   [Reply to this comment]

   Leo | Jan 30, 2009

8. I have just discovered Loren’s Field Notes. I think it’s disgusting for a supposedly independent local news organization to include this naked socialist plantation propoganda. I agree - dump this blog; get Loren to concentrate on weather, not climate and hire John Coleman as his boss.

   [Reply to this comment]

   Pete | Jan 31, 2009

9. As someone else that has a public job (soon anyhow). To those that do not like the blog a solution for you. Don’t read it. Instead of calling for a firing of a great guy who may have a different opinion, just don’t read his blog and enjoy his weather updates.

   [Reply to this comment]

   Kris Rochester | Jan 31, 2009

10. Socialist? I’m not sure how you arrive at that, but silencing independent thought by calling for the job of someone who is trying to initiate healthy
    debate, now that is a scary attitude. BTW, John Coleman is a very nice man. We happen to disagree on the subject of climate change and much else about the environment. I am happy he speaks up, but I disagree.
    I wonder, should he be fired for having an opinion about climate? Is he a
    (insert insult here) for having an opinion different from mine? Nope, just an intelligent guy speaking his mind. Misinformed, yes, but a bad person? Not at all.

    [Reply to this comment]

    In response, on February 7, 2009, Barbara said:

    John Coleman may be a very nice man but the day 10 News replaces Loren Nancarrow with John Coleman is the day I stop watching 10 News.

    In response, on February 9, 2009, TX said:

    The day that ANYONE replaces this crackpot will be the day I start watching their news daily. This guy is so full of himself it stinks. If you guys paid nearly as much to science overall rather than plucking ‘facts’ from sporadic ideologs, you’d know that global warming isn’t a choice, a naturally occuring condition and there isn’t ANYTHING you can do to stop it. Put down your Koolaid.

    Loren Nancarrow | Feb 1, 2009

11. Leo, the overall concept of cleaning up the environment is a great idea. But the whole notion of crippling our economy on the altar of Global Warming is ludicrous. It is mind boggling that people with unrecedented access to massive amouts of information would be so totaly stuck on the hoax that is global warming. Even NASA has backed away from endorsing the foremost scientist espousing the anthropogenic global warming theory, James Hansen of NASA. Hansen is a fanatic who has been one of the sources of FUDGED data offered in support of AGW. His boss at NASA was John Theon; Theon, like many other scientists, has now come out as a global warming skeptic.
    Real science is out there and more and more, it says Global Warming is not happening.

    The basic tenet of Loren’s thread is if the Japanese car makers can make high mileage cars, then US makers should be able to match or exceed their efforts. But I beleive cleaner air should be a by-product of better mileage. Reducing greenhouse gasses, such as they are, should not be the determing factor.

    I do not believe John Coleman is misinformed as Loren states. The rightness or wrongness of an opinion resides in the point of view of the individual. But, in my opinion, the growing body of, you know, actual scientific evidence supports the POV of John Coleman that says Global Warming is a scam. Longer and colder winter season , anyone? The global mean-temprature right now is the same as it was in 1980.

    [Reply to this comment]

    Rey | Feb 2, 2009

12. Hi Rey,
    The link below shows the global mean temperature anomalies from 1880 to 2008. The global mean temperature is higher than in 1980, significantly so.
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da.....00mean.dat
    The greatest temperature change is in the polar regions. AS far as the anthropogenic aspects of climate change, much of the warming follows concentrations of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere which start to rise during the industrial revolution and as one might expect continue to rise even faster now.

    [Reply to this comment]

    In response, on February 9, 2009, TX said:

    BTW…it has already been proving that HEATING causes higher CO2…not the other way around.

    In response, on February 9, 2009, Loren said:

    TX,
    No such thing has been proven! Please provide data if you make claims like that. Loren

    loren nancarrow | Feb 2, 2009

13. I think it would be interesting to hear a debate on the global warming issue between Loren and John Coleman. For Coleman’s opinion, you can read it at kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner

    [Reply to this comment]

    Brian | Feb 3, 2009

14. Loren, thank you for the gracious response to my comments. The link you provide is interesting, but honestly, I started to get bogged down going through the numbers. Suffice to say, that link seems to support your point of view. Darn it if I can no longer find the source for my comment.
    Please, allow me to presnt this link for your review;

    http://www.andrewbostom.org/bl.....ng-period/

    It is a blog site that pulls together several data points that, on the whole, put forth the notion that AGW is not a real crisis after all, rather it is a notion that has been advanced based on false, manipulated, or manufactured data. When Al gore says the “science is in”, I disagree. Official scientific opinion that does not support AGW is ignored. The science of climate specialists not affilliated with the IPCC and Al Gore is still being gathererd and debated. I guess my point is, one can find information to support one’s argument anywhere on the net, like skewing statistics to support an argument. But it is a mistake to set policy for the nation, and the state, based on a concept that is, more and more, being found out to be wrong and that is a manufactured crisis, put out there for political purposes. With all the talk about CO2 in the atmosphere, why is there no talk about the greater effect of water vapor on climate? With an increase in temps, wouldn’t there be more water vapor in the air, more cloud formation, more shielding from the sun’s radiant energy, thereby a cooling effect because of cloud cover? That shows my humble rudimentary knowledge of atmospherics.

    [Reply to this comment]

    Rey | Feb 3, 2009

15. I have found the “debate” on global warming to be interesting…yet rather lop-sided too. Everyone listens to, reports on and talks about the side and “science” supporting Global Warming. What about the other side? Out of curiosity I have also looked at the side that debunks Global Warming. Both make compelling arguements for their opinions backed up with science. However the side debunking global warming has a much “harder” science backing it in my opinion.

    So than why is the side that debunks Global Warming constantly ignored and not given a voice in main stream media outlets and goverment offices and officals? Why aren’t there any real debates on this issue? Why are the usual outlets so lop-sided in this “debate”? Why are there more scientist debunking Global Warming and mroe and more that supported it coming over to the debunking side? There are to many questions here that for some reason are not being truthfully answered in my opinion.

    [Reply to this comment]

    Steve | Feb 6, 2009

16. We won’t be leading the nation again. Instead we shot ourselves in the foot along with all the other states. Diesel cars, like those enjoyed in Europe get much better mileage and hence much reducd CO2 emissions. Much cheaper than a Prius too. There are dozens of cars there that get 40 to 80 MPG. They are not coming here now. When the feds froze the smog requirements the automakers finally had a fixed target and were willing to start developing diesels for our market. Many of those were expected to start coming out this year and next. Schwarzenegger with Obama’s help just turned it back into a moving target and no one is going to spend money developing diesel fuelled cars for our market anymore. By the time you think you have something to market that target changes and you have to do much of the develping all over again. That cost to much. It’s a shame. My wifes car is 10 years old. Gets 17 MPG and I wanted to replace it with something like a VW Jetta wagaon that could get 35 to 40 miles per gallon around town and cut our carbon foot print by 2/3rds.

    [Reply to this comment]

    In response, on February 13, 2009, Rick Royer said:

    It’s me again. Obama and Schwarzenegger have screwed up the chance of getting serious carbon emissions reduced much sooner than 2050 and now they are thinking about taxing us for carbon emissions. Way to go guys. Check out the article below. And Thanks!!!!

    Obama’s Energy Secretary: Get Ready for Carbon Taxes

    Kurt Nimmo
    Infowars
    February 13, 2009

    Buried in a New York Times article replete with the pontification of Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu we find what the globalists have in mind for us — carbon taxes so crippling they will drive more jobs out of the country and send energy costs through the stratosphere.

    Obama listens as Energy Secretary Stephen Chu speaks at the Energy Department in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2009.

    “Dr. Chu said reaching agreement on legislation to combat climate change would be difficult in the current recession because any scheme to regulate greenhouse gas emissions would probably cause energy prices to rise and drive manufacturing jobs to countries where energy is cheaper,” reports the New York Times. “The concern about cap-and-trade in today’s economic climate,” Dr. Chu said, “is that a lot of money might flow to developing countries in a way that might not be completely politically sellable.”

    “He said that while President Obama and Congressional Democratic leaders had endorsed a so-called cap-and-trade system to control global warming pollutants, there were alternatives that could emerge, including a tax on carbon emissions or a modified version of cap-and-trade.”

    Agence France-Presse didn’t dance around the issue like the New York Times. “During the US presidential campaign, the notion was kept largely on the back burner as candidates were reluctant to promote the idea of costlier energy at a time when gasoline prices were soaring.” Now that Obama is in office, Chu believes “alternatives could emerge, including a tax on carbon emissions.”

    In the New York Times article, Chu says “Big Science” and “Nobel-level breakthroughs,” along with taxing the plebs until they become third world serfs will save the planet from the menace of global warming and climate change. Dr. Chu, a physicist, didn’t tell the other half of the story — an increasing number of scientists believe the sun is a major driving force behind global warming, not carbon emissions.

    “Ice core samples show that CO2 levels (which are blamed by many to be the initiating force behind a rise in global temperature) rise 800 years after an initial rise in temperature,” writes Daniel Taylor. “Other data gathered regarding solar activity show a clear connection between fluctuations in the sun’s activity and temperature variations on earth. If the sun is in fact the culprit for changes in the earth’s temperature, world taxes, global government and other solutions we are being given are not cutting to the root cause of climate change.”

    In 1990, writes Jim Tucker, the Bilderbergers adopted climate change as the preferred model to impose global government and reintroduce serfdom. “Like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group discovered the issue of environmental deterioration. Bilderbergers embraced a report from the Trilateral Commission that year on the environment, because the potential profit in cleaning up the mess would be immense.”

    The following year, the Club of Rome think tank published The First Global Revolution, a book suggesting a draconian neo-Malthusianism “limit to growth” approach will solve the world’s problems, in fact a problem the global elite has with humanity. “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill,” the book states. “All these dangers are caused by human intervention,” and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

    A d v e r t i s e m e n t

    The Club of Rome’s members, including Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Mikhail Gorbachev, believe humanity requires “a common motivation, namely a common adversary” in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or… one invented for the purpose.” In the process of struggling against this implacable enemy, democracy “will be made to seem responsible for the lagging economy, the scarcity and uncertainties. The very concept of democracy could then be brought into question and allow for the seizure of power.”

    Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, expanded on this topic in his article, State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era. According to Haass, a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming and terrorism, both invented as the Club of Rome suggested. “Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change,” writes Haass. “The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.”

    In addition to pushing the junk science of climate change, our rulers are systematically taking down the global economy in order to impose what Haass describes as “an international system of either world government or anarchy.”

    Prior to the election, Obama called for drastically reducing carbon emissions. “President elect Barack Obama used his speech at a Los Angeles summit last night to reinvigorate a push for the revival of a frightening proposal to slash carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status,” Paul Joseph Watson wrote for Prison Planet on November 19, 2008. “Obama’s agenda to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent is a huge leap towards the ultimate goal, expressed by the Carnegie Institute earlier this year and afforded sober credibility by the corporate media - a complete reduction down to zero carbon emissions.”

    “Zero carbon emissions? That would lead to the near complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man’s return to the stone age,” Watson incredulously notes.

    It may indeed be a “tough sell to get a law passed in the United States that could lead to higher energy prices,” as Energy Secretary Steven Chu suggests.

    Congress under the Democrats, however, was able to pass the largest tax and spend bill in U.S. history with relatively little opposition. In the months ahead, with the help of the corporate media, they will crank up the propaganda about climate change and eventually impose punitive carbon taxes on the American people, a scheme that may eventually lead to the near complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man’s return to the stone age.

    Rick Royer | Feb 6, 2009

17. I’ll leave this one last post here. For all who are truly interested, and those not afraid to see the other side, here is a site that provides all the information you need to know about why global warming is a lie. This is actual science debunking the hysteria of global warming in a calm and sensible manner. You owe it yourself to be informed.
    http://www.junkscience.com/

    [Reply to this comment]

    Rey | Feb 6, 2009

Post a Comment