And today and tomorrow we have what might be a real-life effect of our transportation/energy decisions: heat.

Overall, I believe that it is foolish to think that we can do things like dump stuff into the atmosphere and not suffer any consequences. As for locals vs. the federal gov't, it doesn't matter what an entity decides if people below it aren't willing to go along.

As long as so many dollars are still tied up in federal transportation taxes, then federal energy policy is still relevant.

From the recently released
global climate change report
Compare the actual words with news reports:
__________________________________________________

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,
National Research Council

OVERALL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on its deliberations and the materials presented in Chapters 1-11 and elsewhere,
the committee draws the following overall conclusions regarding large-scale surface temperature
reconstructions for the last 2,000 years:
● The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6̊C during the 20th century is
also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other
observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.
● Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture
of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions
centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively
cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice
Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores,
tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for
regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records
including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia,
but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and
the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.
● It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature
was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period
during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the
evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
● Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for
the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that
temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than
during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with
reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase
substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
● Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric
mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data
coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to
analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

From a 157 page report: Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years - http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html

________________________________________________
My interpretation: We are currently the warmest in the 400 years since the time of a little ice age. We are just warming up aftaer an ice age!

Thanks
JK

Federal policy is still relevant of course. However, I think we will see Federal policy that is increasingly at odds with common sense and common opinion. Because of the trend towards environmental support among the US population I believe local policy will continue to preempt and eventually come to overshadow Federal policy.

This is likely true for energy, transportation, environmental and drug policy.

Federal Policy will have an effect, the problem is they're reshaping something they can't and have never been able to truly control (Not that they can actually control anything). Besides that the primary problem we have today is because of the wealth "redistribution" that the Feds attempt to undertake. They continually take from the rich so the poor can "get around" which generally happens to be with cars. Fortunately in Portland the people here are a bit more enabled by their push for choices and alternative methods. In most of the country though the redistribution incurs nothing but growth in SOV usage and often times by people that shouldn't be able to afford it.

In the end though, it costs us ALL a LOT more.

If people simply had to "pay to ride" almost ALL of these issues would go away, for the simple fact that millions would simply just stop putzing around for no good reason. Also with the extra wealth back in the private sector instead of being pilfered by the Government there would be a lot of actual REAL motive for people to come up with more creative ways to get around, or simply to live better and easier exactly where they are at.

Simply said, "The Fed Policy will have an effect", most likely whatever it is won't make things better, and could very well make things worse.

Please read the real report - it differs a lot from the news reports. Here is its conclusions section:

OVERALL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on its deliberations and the materials presented in Chapters 1-11 and elsewhere,
the committee draws the following overall conclusions regarding large-scale surface temperature
reconstructions for the last 2,000 years:
● The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6̊C during the 20th century is
also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other
observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.
● Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture
of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions
centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively
cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice
Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores,
tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for
regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records
including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia,
but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and
the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.
● It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature
was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period
during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the
evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
● Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for
the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that
temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than
during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with
reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase
substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
● Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric
mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data
coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to
analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

From a 157 page report: Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years - http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html

Jim, in what way does the report differ from news reports?

The general consensus remains unchanged: temperartures are very likely much higher now than in any recent period of time

Don't make the mistake of assuming that scientists are ambigous in their opinions because of terminology indicating some uncertainty. Scientists use the term "theory" to describe concepts that are not 100 percent certain but pretty damn close. This is the same mistake creationists make when referring to evolution as "just a theory".

Anyways....I find it difficult to take your points seriously...

Adron, I'll buy into your individualistic worldview as soon as there is a critical mass of people evolved enough to implement it. I don't like the current structure of the Federal government any more than you, but I do feel it reflects *us* as a people and that we need to transcend it rather than shift polarities. What do you think?

nathan Says: Jim, in what way does the report differ from news reports?
The general consensus remains unchanged: temperartures are very likely much higher now than in any recent period of time
JK: Not any period, just since the little ice age and, to a lesser certainty, the preceding 600 years. Here is what I read:

1. “ Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture
of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions
centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively
cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice
Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence...”

2. “It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature
was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period
during the preceding four centuries.” Of course “the preceding four centuries” start at 2000-400=1600, the middle of the little ice age. Translation: we are warming up after a little ice age. (The famous hockey stick does not show this little ice age. It also does not show the Medieval Warm Period. Both omissions make the hockey stick suspect. See MBH98.pdf, the Science mag article that origionated the hockey stick.)

3. “ Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for
the period from A.D. 900 to 1600..” “Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900...” “Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900.” – So we really don’t know much about times before the little ice age and the preceding 600 years. That means that we also don’t know whether or not we are warmer than the period BEFORE the little ice age and the preceding 600 years. - a key piece of information upon which to judge the unusualness (or ordinariness) of the current climate.

Conclusion: We have no rational basis to claim that we are the warmest since any time other than the little ice age and, with less certainty, the preceding 600 years. I have seen some articles claim that we are warmest in 2000 years, most neglect the uncertainty surrounding anything before the little ice age. They seldom mention the little ice age (after all it is normal to warm up after a little ice - otherwise we would still be in the little ice age.)

(The body of the report discusses most of the methods used to determine past climate and their strengths and weaknesses. This essentially rips the foundation out from under predictions of doom based on current climate science.)

Since ice ages regularly occur, I think we should not worry until we get warmer than the warm up before the few last ice ages. After all that is probably the best indicator of what is normal.

For some history of climate publicity see: http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html

Thanks
JK