Science & Technology

Rant

Sescessionist Texas Governor Asks Obama for Help

Posted 13 months ago|15 comments|594 views
Texas Wildfire Season Worst In History
VIDEOS
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
In what has got to be one of the most ironic moments of the year, the secessionist Texas Governor Rick Perry, is demanding Disaster Relief For Texas Wildfires From Obama. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/18...

So apparently the governor has changed his mind about the need for big government. I wonder if he also acknowledges that taxes will have to be raised to pay for the aid he will receive? Would austerity plans and budget cuts include disaster relief?

Has he also changed his mind about Global Warming since this is the driest Texas has been in nearly a century? NASA data shows the last decade was the hottest in history. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/scienc...

How about those Southern governors who are also asking for disaster relief for the 240 tornadoes that tore through 14 states? Are they still Global Warming deniers? "NASA scientists have developed a new climate model that indicates that the most violent severe storms and tornadoes may become more common as Earth's climate warms." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

What about the record storms and blizzards this February? "According to NationalGeographic.com, what's been dubbed "Snowpocalypse 2011" is one of the worst storms since the 1950s." Doesn't anyone think that was strange? But hold it you say. What does freezing and blizzards have to do with Global Warming? Doesn't that prove that Global Warming is a myth?

The facts are that warmer oceans and atmosphere create more moisture in the air and thus more storms, and that the lack of polar ice shifts the colder air fronts South, and where they meet the warm moist air from the warmer oceans, there are huge storms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM1vxCWB...

But aren't they calling it Climate Change now instead of Global Warming to fool everyone because the temperatures are actually getting cooler? Actually Climate change is what it was always called (guess what the CC stands for in IPCC?) The whole naming controversy was thought up by the fossil fuel/ Denial industry to foster confusion among the ignorant. http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-d...

My question is: If all scientific evidence points to more and more natural disasters, as we have been experiencing ever more frequently, shouldn't we budget more money for disaster relief instead of cutting that budget? Shouldn't we pay for it instead of just borrowing more?

Shouldn't the Fossil Fuel Industries that are creating Global Warming, who have the lowest taxes in 60 years, pay a bit more to help all of these unfortunate victims of these Global Warming Disasters?
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
Content Removed by Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: Atruist, You and readers of this awesome post may enjoy some of my writings on this matter from almost two years ago...

• The Kingdom of Sand
• Greenhouse Effect 101
• Global Warming Skepticism Reviewed
• Then on to "Newtonian Law and the Climate Crisis"
13 months ago: Ok. Let's play that game. Is Texas a state in the U.S. today which contributes to the Federal income? Last time I looked California was not doing too well. Does California ever need Federal emergency assistance? You want to have a means test on which states get assistance based on their political standing with the Democrats? Is it not ironic that some might think it is ironic for a Govenor to ask for the money their state has paid to be returned in an emergency?

OK. Fair enough. You start a petition to allow Texas to secede and get it passed. We will keep every single penny we pay to support other states and take care of our own problems.

Is that fair?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: I think the part of secession is only ironic in that you cannot have it both ways. You're either part of a country or you're not. It's just ironic that people want to be part of a country when the country is coming to their aid, and not part of it when they feel they are having to aid others.
13 months ago: While your at it please visit some of my unsubstantiated posts....

http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Man-on-Mars...

http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Chemtrails-...
13 months ago: Hey Al and ColoRanter. What is the gas is the highest by volume in the atmosphere?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: Nitrogen
13 months ago: OK. caught by a technicality. So what is the highest GHG by volume in the atmosphere?
13 months ago: I guess that sun spots, solar flares, magnetic pole shift, volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis are next on your manmade global warming watch list.

What will you say when you wake up to find half of California floating in the Pacific? Will you ask for emergency assistance? Can we blame it on solar panels?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: Volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis, yes, solar flares and sun spots, no. If we get wiped out by sun spots and solar flares, that's not on us. If we get wiped out by things we can actually control such as how much oil and gas we pump out of the earth and burn, then yes.

As I've written so much on this topic over the years and not just on here, I constantly have to ask myself to ask others, what's the point of denying it?

It's a simple chemical equation. organic fuel + oxygen gas ------> carbon dioxide and water. Period, there is nothing to debate and no question of it being done by humans all over the world on a massive scale. And if you know anything about a chemical equation, if you put together a bunch of reactants, you are going to get a bunch of products. The carbon dioxide levels are rising. They have to be. No one may be able to measure it yet, because the earth is a complex living system working under the laws of physics in an non-equilibrium system. No one knows the earth's capacity so to speak for balancing this excess carbon dioxide and water. It might be a long time before it's a huge problem or it could be next month. It would be great to know when it will be a problem before it's too late, but we cannot know as our science hasn't advance enough to make it possible to solve the problem. Therefore, as we don't know, why not start now getting a head start on reducing the levels of carbon dioxide? Why not? Who does it hurt?
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: It hurts the oil companies. Yes, well switching to oil from wood hurt the timber industry, were you up in arms? Switching to solar would help the solar companies. I liken it to what the phone companies did with the Internet. They were smart enough to figure out years ago that the Internet was going to put them out of business. Why would anyone pay to send information over their wires when the Internet wires were going to be free to use? Nobody would, so the solution was simply to buy the Internet, which is what they did. So, now they aren't trying to stop the Internet because they own it. Oil companies would be smart simply to buy up all the solar companies and problem solved. The miraculous thing they have yet to figure out is there is a lot more profit to be made in the solar industry. How so? Well, how much does it cost to find and recover oil vs. how much does it cost to find and recover solar energy? Really? It's that simple. It's like the guy who said one day to Alcoa® hmm, do we make more money off recycled or raw aluminum cans? Well, when you make an aluminum can from mined aluminum ore, you spend a fortune mining, transporting, and manufacturing aluminum. The costs are cut by more than half, if you get others to go out, collect the metal, bring it to you, and all you have to do is melt, clean, and reprocess.

Oil companies should be working to get out of that business ASAP and into a business where the original source is free, delivered to their doorstep every daylight minute. All they have to do is catch it, transform it, and send it on. It's a no brainer and a win-win for them and the planet, therefore us.
13 months ago: and there is enough Hydrogen in this world to produce all the energy we would need forever and produce water when burned...but it's damn dangerous.
13 months ago: Before spewing such you might want to visit this ca.gov website....

http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/inc...

Seems to me California gets way too much help from the federal government.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
13 months ago: I don't think anyone is saying that TX is getting too much assistance or doesn't deserve assistance. As one of the most populous states, Texans pay a large share of taxes. They deserve assistance from the Federal government. Let's just be fair and say again either you're part of the big picture or not. Maybe if Texas were independent it could fund the damage control efforts alone. Maybe it couldn't who knows. It's just ironic to be talking about how you'd be better off alone and then seek aid from the very source you claim you don't need – that's all. It's ironic even if you are only asking for your own money back.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
13 months ago: Part of what Texas owns is their fair share of the National Debt. They received more than their share of the security benefits of all of the wars and military spending and they got their share of the tax cuts and unfunded Medicare benefits that Bush and the other Republican Presidents borrowed for. So before they could leave the union they would have to pay off their share of the debt. They have to pay off the mortgage before they sell the house.

The point of the post is there is no such thing as a free lunch. Texas and all of the other States who receive disaster relief do not pay for it. It is just added to the National Debt. Someone has to pay for it and the Republicans want to do that by slashing school budgets 25% and by taking the food out of the mouths of babies.

I think that since the Fossil Fuel Industry is creating the problem, as Coloranter pointed out, that they should pay for it.

If we had a carbon tax that reflected the true environmental cost of the fossil fuels, the costs of these fires, tornadoes, hurricanes should be included.

Coloranter I am not certain you are correct when you say we don't know how much CO2 is too much. Most scientists think 350 ppm is the upper limit we can sustainably live with. We are now at 391 ppm. http://www.350.org/about/science
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
13 months ago: So Texas calls in a chit, so what? They've been paying through the nose for years, and when other communities, such as NOLA were crabbing for more and more of everyone else's money, Texas was taking care of its own business, relatively speaking.

Worst storms since the 1950s. Funny? I wonder how much CO2 was in the air in 1950. Or in 1770, for that matter. You have to be able to see beyond the end of your own nose.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.