Wasn't the reason the Trans-Canada pipeline was turned down because Congress was trying to force a quick decision? Under the circumstances I agree with the decision. There could be significant environmental repercussions to the pipeline, and decision to build it should not be based on politics. That being said, I am sure the review will continue. I don't think we'd heard the last of this pipeline.

I agree we need to address our problem with foreign oil, but it has be balanced. Solyndra was unfortunate but there are other companies doing good work in green energy. The oil and natural gas won't last forever.

I have to say that no one can be expected to work 4 years straight without a break, and I believe Obama was speaking figuratively about that. I also have to point out that by 9/11/2001, George W. Bush had already taken more vacation time than any other president in U.S. history, and that includes two-term presidents. By that metric, Obama has taken far less time than GW Bush and shouldn't be represented as taking too much time off.

AWD I read that this pipeline creates 6,000 temporary jobs but few permanent ones. And concerning green jobs, Johnson Controls is becoming a global leader in this area, among its other activities. I don't think we've heard the last of the pipeline, and I don't pretend to know all the details about it, but the fact that it would go to the Gulf of Mexico, an area that has suffered so much damage in the past few years, is a red flag.

Other concerns are that it has the potential to become a target for domestic and international terrorism because of its size and scope, not only from political adversaries but also corporate. Hopefully no one is forgetting that Exxon Mobile has still not paid reparations for its Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska or its underwhelming response to its more recent spill in the Colorado river (because they lied about the depth of the pipeline). Or BP in the GOM, where they were using safeguards which they knew to be ineffective.

And until Barack Obama's policies are responsible for as many deaths and maimings and financial disasters as his predecessor, George W. Bush reigns (in my opinion) as the "worst" president of modern times.

@J.B. Schmidt....This pipeline first three phases are already in operation. In fact part of the oil is transported to the refineries in Illinois. If you had bothered to do the research more fully you would know that it wasn't just the Sand Hills, but more importantly it is a major risk to the Ogallala Aquifer. I agree that Obama made a political decision based on the Republicans setting an unreasonable and unconstitutional deadline. I am not sure whether it will eventually get built or not. In any case it is something that doesn't have to be immediately decided and can wait for the full EPA report. Besides it plays well with Obama's base.

Also, the private capital is 100% Canadian since Conoco/Phillips sold their interest. I think Bren is right, but I can't swear to it, that there is only 6000 construction workers and very few permanent jobs.

Promoting energy independence is a fallacious argument. It will not make us any more energy independent than what we are now. It just means we will be buying oil from Canada instead of Argentina and Nigeria.

Also, this is bitumen and much needs to be done in order to get it to flow and must be diluted with synthetics before it will flow. Tar sands are not the ultimate answer to our energy needs. They represent only a short term partial solution that is expensive and highly polluting.

@J.B. Schmidt...The Ogallala Aquifer is critical for drinking water for 20 million Americans and supports $20 billion in agricultural production. I have seen what happens when petroleum products get into the ground water. It is almost impossible to remove, so why take the risk.

There isn't any indication that it will reduce oil prices since they are global prices. In fact bitumen oil is very expensive to produce.

Your lack of foresight concerning alternative energy is disappointing. We have to move to alternative energy sources.

@J.B. Schmidt...You are stating an extreme position of going back to horse power and cave existence. The Ogallala is under assault already by Rick Perry's support in Texas of fracking for natural gas in the southwest section of the aquifer. We can already see locally what happens when the ground water is tainted, Waukesha Counties Radon contamination. Fortunately there are other sources available for them, but invision if that was their only source. That's what people dependent on the Ogallala are facing if an accident happens, so why take the risk.

The answer to our energy needs is not only the use of current energy sources, but further technological advances, but most importantly, each of us becoming responsible stewards. As we have seen, technology cannot provide all the answers.

Close to forty years ago I was a strong proponent of tar/sands extraction until I started working in the field. I found it to be the worst of all worlds. Over the forty years technology has provided better ways for bitumen separation, but it is still not worth the energy investment and degregation of our environment. You keep talking about the world that your children and grandchildren will inherit, don't they need to inherit a clean environment where responsible resourse extraction can occur?

@J.B. Schmidt....According to Petroleum Producer News studies, fracking is a high risk process since no one can accurately predict the side effects of widespread use. To believe that we will continue with cheap petroleum is a pipe dream. You are clearly living in the past. I am a pragmatist and "Murphy's Law" is always present. The Gulf Oil Spill is not the only incidence of things going wrong. I made a pretty good living in the "oil patch" selling safety equipment and components. You may be willing to sell your soul and your children's future, but I am not. I think you are too young to remember the devastating messes that had to be cleaned up in order to begin the mess of 150 years of industrialism. In Racine, the old Webster Hydraulics Plant is so contaminated that it's essentially a dead space.

What you are objecting to is having to make the changes necessary for sustainability. If we stopped using fossil fuels for energy, then there would be more than enough to support other industries dependent on oil, far into the future.

Your attitudes and beliefs are contributing to your children's future suffering. By the time you finally come to the realization, it'll be too late and I doubt you will take any personal responsibility for their plight. It's just like having more children than the planet can support. The more children someone has the bigger burden and contribution to an overly stressed carrying capacity of the planet.

@J.B. Schmidt....Did I state that I was in favor of the government interfering with your reproductive rights? I am speaking to personal responsibility towards the greater whole. The planet is perhaps overpopulated by as much as 50%. I don't wish to go back to a pre industrialized society, even if we could. Your provincial views harken back to the unwarranted optimism of Ronald Reagan who was such a great conservationist that he appointed James Watt as Secretary of the Interior. He was the one who resigned because people wouldn't tolerate his stated ideas and principles. He is the one who claimed we didn't have to do anything to protect the environment, since before we exhausted our resources the "second coming" will have occurred.

Global climate change is a fact and people like yourself have decided that it's bunk. If the facts don't fit your preconceived notions, you reject the facts and follow the preconception.

Technology alone will not save us. Remember technology is a two sided sword and cuts both ways. Depending on technology to save us is just as extreme as Watt's crazy belief in the rescue through the second coming.

@J.B. Schmidt...The preponderance of scientific evidence supports the negative impact that humans are having on climate change. The reduction of fossil fuel use will have an impact on greenhouse emissions, which create conditions that accelerate climate change.

Generally the markets will not become involved until it is profitable to do so. The role of government is to help develop the technology that will lead to new market solutions.

The problem with waiting for the problem to become critical to either survival or the maintenance of the standard of living, we probably wouldn't have time to appropriately react. It's just like not setting money aside for a rainy day or for retirement; if you haven't done it ahead of time, then when the need arises, it is too late.

@skinnyDUDE...I don't believe in conspiracies, including scientific ones. The Ice Age began some two million years ago. It seems to correspond to the closing of the passage way between the Atlantic and Pacific in Central America. We are currently in an inter-glacial period which began somewhere around 10,000 years ago. You can deny the science if you want to, but we are in the process of climate change. Human activity does contribute to the matrix of variables impacting the current environment.

@skinnyDUDE...I didn't quote nor refer to Al Gore. For everyone who hasn't been following this problem and debate, for every one scientist your side can produce, my side can produce nine who support human acceleration of climate change. I first began following this in the mid 1970s. I initially didn't approach it from a scientific perspective but from population demographics. I am sorry that you think I have been drinking the kool aid, but I have been studying this in depth for decades. My conclusions stand.

@skinnyDUDE...I think it is healthy to have an open discussion of issues, especially one of this magnitude. The only way to get to the "truth" is through a vigorous peer debate. However, I don't know who you think is going to personally benefit from claiming that the climate change is being accelerated by humans. Remember, I don't believe in conspiracies.

LOL Obama had money for crabs running on a treadmill in his stimuleous bill . I know society doesnt benefit by such nonsense , but he is beholding to that elite numbing group of lefties in his weird world of academia . Govenment funding carries alot of these clowns......Open your eyes. If there is hige amounts of money tied to the study of global warming it benefits people .Al Gore has made millions of it . What the heck is wrong with you Lyle?

@skinnyDUDE...You can deride basic research all you want, but I as a supporter of academia and research, don't find your attitude and belief to be credible. I don't deny that sometimes I don't understand the reasons for certain research, but for the most part it can be justified. I could ask the same question why we spend so much on economics research when the models have such a low success rate. However, with more research we may find better predictive models. Therefore, they are worth the time and money.

@J.B. Schmidt...Just like being wrong about biological evolution?

@J.B. Schmidt....the reason that I used evolution is that all the observable evidence supports the "theory". With climate change, observable evidence supports human acceleration of climate change. I admit that the complexity of climate change makes it more difficult to understand all the independent and dependent variables making it less clear cut. Denial of scientific evidence, is done at your own peril.

@Lyle
'All observable evidence', accept the actual creation of a species that the history of evolution is built on. I don't argue with micro evolution; however, that occurs within each species via genetic changes and does not produce a new species.

1000 years ago we both would have though the earth was flat. 40 years ago we would have argued that it was cooling. There is a significant amount of evidence that leads me to believe that the sun plays a large part on our temperature.

@J.B. Schmidt...Micro evolution, as you call it does lead to new species. For example; during mammalian gestation all fetuses have gill slits, demonstrating evolution from one species to another. Our brains also show our evolutionary history.

The belief in a flat world only existed in Europe. There is plenty of evidence that the Greeks had accurately known the circumference of the earth. Over forty years ago I was already studying about the potential antecedents to climate change and the advent of the "Greenhouse Effect".

Of course the sun plays the most significant role in earth's climate. But, if the sun is the source of all energy, how that energy impacts life on earth is determined by a multitude of variables. From climate history, Greenland Ice Core studies, we know the impact of CO2 on the climate. Fossil fuels are a major source of CO2 and reducing CO2 release will have a positive impact on decelerating global climate change.

@Lyle
Gills, tails, extra feet bones on whales, Lucy; there are many things that evolutionists have pointed to over the years as circumstantial evidence that evolution is real. I could respond in kind with details on why I believe that all those to be bogus. At the end of the day, you take what you think is proof and I take what I think is proof; but we both have to rely on faith that our proof is correct. Then when we die one of us will be proven right.

However, as DUDE has pointed out, the amount of money being funneled into global warming sciences by all nations has produced a level of greed that (as we have seen) could lead to falsification of results. That makes me skeptical of the science as a whole. Especially, when there are scientists either within the green money machine or outside of it that question the entirety of global warming.

@J.B. Schmidt...You can deny evolutionary evidence all you want. I would be interested in what your views are. I know you have a good mind, but to hold such child like beliefs I find to be disconcerting. It is one thing to be skeptical, but quite another to reject overwhelming evidence.

@Lyle
Sorry for the delay. My wife seems to think that family should come before Patch. She just doesn’t get it.

I am a Christian and believe the Bible as error free. I went to a Lutheran grade school and high school. Not up until I got to college biology did I find a need to question Genesis. It was then that I was introduced to a world that doesn’t accept my premise. So I did some searching and researching. I have only bolstered by original believe.

Outside of the first three chapters of Genesis, I find many reasons to believe that evolution (not adaptation) is impossible.

Starting at the Big Bang, the existence of this planet is flawed because of the outlandish odds required to accept that this planet came about by chance. The multitude of things that make this planet habitable: 1) Correct heat from a sun 2) Placed in the correct orbit 3) Tilted properly 4) A moon orbiting correctly 5) Gravity that keeps gas here, but doesn’t crush us 6) Chemical bonds that allow carbon chains or allow water to float rather then sink 7) Correct gas mixture to breath and act as sun shield 8) Magnetic poles that are working right now to block a solar blast 9) The cycle of water 10) Oceans with proper water to act as heat sinks that create currents that create weather and the list could go on.

@Lyle (cont)
However, if you change one of the variables everything falls apart. Dr. Roger Penrose calculated that that the odds of it happening again or at all are 10 x 10 to the 123 power. If 10 to the 50th power is statically zero, then there is a lot of room to play with his number if his math is flawed and still say that an accident of earths scale is not possible.

As for biological evolution, not only do I find it hard to believe that it started at all; what it has produced seems to be capable within the rules of evolution. To start with, no one has been able to replicate the original evolutionary moment. Maybe they can accidentally get RNA strands to form; however, those have never then become functioning DNA. Beyond that, when I see the world, I see products that require multiple steps within the evolutionary chain to occur at once in order to produce a viable final product. For instance, the giraffe must have both a strong enough heart to pump blood to its head; while simultaneously have valves in its blood vessels that prevent it from blowing its head off when it bends down to drink. If evolution occurs through the long process of successive adaptation, then neither one of those on its own is a working adaptation and to take the leap of both plus a long neck within a single generation is inconceivable.

@Lyle (cont)
I could go on about what I see with the development of the eye, the butterfly metamorphosis, or development of a human conscience; but I think my general point has been made.
My observance of the world and biology lead me to doubt that chance is the ultimate creator of this universe. Since the big bang and evolution are not conscious entities, there must be a larger power at work.

Call it childish or uninformed; my observations of both science and by my own hands and eyes lead me to believe that God is the answer.

@J.B. Schmidt...Thank you for sharing your view on evolution. Let me first take up Penrose. Penrose is an avowed atheist. His calculation of 10 x 10 to the 125th is simply a calculation of how low the probability is but does not eliminate the possibility.

Simply speaking, given enough time, in this case 13.78 billion years, and the physical laws of the universe, the probability becomes very high that a planet like earth would come into existence, and with the vastness of the universe, we are probably not the only one.

Evolution provides the answer to how life has evolved and the current life forms are as it is. Looking to the other science disciplines we can now explain massive extinctions and the die off of species as they either adapt to the environment or die. Using Acom's Razor, evolution provides the best solution without bringing in the supernatural.

Theologically, since Jews are not limited by dogma, we approach creation from a different perspective. We have Jews who accept creation literally and others understand that the creation narrative is open to numerous interpretations and allegorical understanding. From the moment of the "Big Bang" onward, the Jewish interpretation sees no inconsistency between the Torah and scientific evidence. What amazes me is that for well over 3 millennium, we Jews have been describing the Big Bang.

@Bren
I have not argued that man has not had an impact on the environment. I do not believe that man has made an impact on the global warming of the planet.

@skinnyDUDE....I don't understand why you are so adverse to the probability that climate change is being accelerated by human actions. For example; Thomas Malthus predicted the impact of population growth and decline some two centuries ago. His predictions were taken seriously and for the most part we have been able to avoid much of the problems he predicted by taking action early enough to change the outcome. To treat climate change as a reality will certainly not harm us and it may lead to solutions that probably will have both short and long term benefit. They isn't the same kind of dire consequences if I am wrong, but if you're wrong; were "dead wrong".