U.S. House Passes Cap and Trade

[Morfin]

House Passes Bill to Address Threat of Climate Change

WASHINGTON — The House passed legislation on Friday intended to address global warming and transform the way the nation produces and uses energy.

The vote was the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change. The legislation, which passed despite deep divisions among Democrats, could lead to profound changes in many sectors of the economy, including electric power generation, agriculture, manufacturing and construction.

The bill’s passage, by 219 to 212, with 44 Democrats voting against it, also established a marker for the United States when international negotiations on a new climate change treaty begin later this year.

At the heart of the legislation is a cap-and-trade system that sets a limit on overall emissions of heat-trapping gases while allowing utilities, manufacturers and other emitters to trade pollution permits, or allowances, among themselves. The cap would grow tighter over the years, pushing up the price of emissions and presumably driving industry to find cleaner ways of making energy.Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us/politics/27climate.html?_r=1&hp)
Interesting that 44 Democrats voted against. Given that there was a lot of corporate opposition to this, maybe this is an indication of who is susceptible to "donor" influence.

[Infotainment]

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us/politics/27climate.html?_r=1&hp)
Interesting that 44 Democrats voted against. Given that there was a lot of corporate opposition to this, maybe this is an indication of who is susceptible to "donor" influence.

Maybe they just don't believe in global warming and hamstringing our economic output for a theory that still hasn't been proven.

[Kerjack]

This is one of those things that cheese me off about our government. They get to just say 'make this happen or else' It does not matter if anyone on the planet knows how to make it happen. "Make cars that use lead for fuel and the only emission is pure gold!"

*Congress pats itself on the back for a job well done, then promptly takes a ride on their private jet*

[Hanover Fist]

Hopefully intelligence will prevail in the Senate and they will kill this abortion.

[Morfin]

Maybe they just don't believe in global warming and hamstringing our economic output for a theory that still hasn't been proven.

Valid point. However, for this many Democrats to vote against a bill that the Democrats wanted badly to pass, there must have been some significant influence.

[Das Kahlua]

Maybe they just don't believe in global warming and hamstringing our economic output for a theory that still hasn't been proven.

No, it's much more likely that a politician would vote for or against something because of how it would affect his/her career rather than any higher moral calling.

Valid point. However, for this many Democrats to vote against a bill that the Democrats wanted badly to pass, there must have been some significant influence.

Just because Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and Obama want something passed doesn't mean that the entire party supports it. Granted, when the entire party leadership is hardcore on board with something, it's difficult to oppose it without being raked over the coals, but then this comes back to supporting or opposing something for political expediency rather than genuine belief.

[fuldstændigamok]

About fucking time.

[Das Kahlua]

This is an absolutely horrible idea, by the way; it will accomplish as little as the Kyoto Treaty while costing millions of jobs and increasing the price of everything, all to prevent the global warming that is really currently global cooling but might someday become warming again.

[tockit]

This is an absolutely horrible idea, by the way; it will accomplish as little as the Kyoto Treaty while costing millions of jobs and increasing the price of everything, all to prevent the global warming that is really currently global cooling but might someday become warming again.
If this bill passes, it will be the biggest tax increase in American history, according to financial experts, including Warren Buffett http://www.cnbc.com/id/31526130

Big tax increases are all we need in one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression.

The fact that it was rushed through the House before most representatives even had a chance to read the bill, and the fact that 300 pages were added to the bill at 3:00am the night before the vote, shows how deceptive and manipulative the democratic party really is.

It's sad and pathetic. This bill will do nothing to curb global warming, seeing as how some of the biggest carbon emitting countries in the world aren't even in it, like China and Russia, and even if they were, who's to say we can control something as big as the temperature of the Earth through our actions?

They're using the same type of scare tactics they used to rush through the economic stimulus package, which already hasn't even came close to jump starting the economy like the democrats claimed it would, while piling massive amounts of debt upon the country.

Our congress right now seems to have no regard for the opinion of its constituents, and is totally out of control.

[Morfin]

Jesus, I find myself in agreement with tockit.

[tockit]

Jesus, I find myself in agreement with tockit.
You may agree, but I've evidently upset fuldstændigamok (http://forum.gorillamask.net/member.php?u=19) because for some reason, he keeps giving me multiple negative feedback???

Is that really an adminstrator's job?

[iolas]

Neal Boortz is spot on as usual...

Today the House is going to vote on this Cap and Trade - more accurately called "Cap and Tax" climate change scam. Any idea as to how big this bill is? Try 1,201 pages (http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr2454.pdf). [pdf] Any idea how many members of the House have read the darn thing? Try zero. Yeah, we are talking about a bill that is going to cost us $845 billion over the next 10 years ... and not one House member has read the entire thing.
If you had $845 billion of your own money on the line, do you think you would be combing through this thing tooth and nail? You betcha. But it's the taxpayers ... it's your grandchildren that will eventually suffer. So the House is willing to sit back and let it pass, and the government educated voters out there wouldn't know the difference.
What's happening tomorrow in Hollywood? What movies are coming out this weekend or what sports teams are playing? I bet you the average American can give you a 1,201 dissertation on these questions. Ask them what their Representatives in Congress are doing today ... passing a $845 billion Cap and Tax bill ... brook trout. I guarantee it.
Here's where the government schools and our wonder bread and circuses culture really come in handy for the political class. As with most of the other things they do, this is about power. Power over your pocketbook. Power over your life. They're going to take a naturally occurring function of everyday life and tax it. Well, more accurately .. they're going to lay claim to something that is essential to human life, something that is essential to the very operation of our economy, and then they're going to sell it to us. Believe me, if these same power-hungry cretins could lay claim to the very air that we breathe, and then sell it back to us, they would do it.
It takes a profoundly ignorant American to not realize that this bill is going to increase their cost of living by a fairly good clip. If you listen carefully the politicians have been admitting it ... and they feel free to do so because they by-God know that the people are not listening. Americans have been so sucked-in by this phony global warming scam that they will accept almost any solution the politicians throw at them. Now you understand why it was so important that, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, these politicians were able to scare you to death with global warming. Movies like "Day after Tomorrow" and OwlGore's idiotic flick had a purpose. Convince you that the seas are going to rise to cover your house and the sky is going to turn orange if we don't do something fast. Americans bought it, and now for the big government payoff. Billions and billions of new dollars flowing into political slush funds to enhance the power and guarantee the elections of political hacks who don't have the talent to run a freaking hardware store.

[Yelram]

You may agree, but I've evidently upset fuldstændigamok (http://forum.gorillamask.net/member.php?u=19) because for some reason, he keeps giving me multiple negative feedback???

Is that really an adminstrator's job?

He no speaky good engrish, so instead of attempting to respond with intelligence, he uses the rep he's gained over his years of wasting time here to slap down anyone who's opinion challenges his in any way. He's basically a sad piece of shit. I really feel bad for his pathetic existence.

[hatepoppy]

HEY FULD!

keep up the good work.

[fuldstændigamok]

Seeing yelram, tockit, casesensitive and cohorts getting pissy, whiny and annoyed by what I'm doing is positive proof that I'm doing it right.
Keep playing guys, you're even managing to be mildly entertaining sometimes.

[tockit]

Seeing yelram, tockit, casesensitive and cohorts getting pissy, whiny and annoyed by what I'm doing is positive proof that I'm doing it right.
Keep playing guys, you're even managing to be mildly entertaining sometimes.
Yeah, well you're doing a great job at administrating. I can't imagine how GMF ever made it without you?

It is odd that you choose to give me negative reputation and comments in the private feedback forum setting without engaging in credible debates or offering any substance about where you stand on the issues, and explaining how you would do things differently out here in the public forums section.

Leads one to believe you really don't know why you support the issues that you do.

[Nosebuckle]

About fucking time.

About time we what? Torch trillions of dollars to not actually do anything about climate change? Fuck that noise.

[Debo]

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us/politics/27climate.html?_r=1&hp)
Interesting that 44 Democrats voted against. Given that there was a lot of corporate opposition to this, maybe this is an indication of who is susceptible to "donor" influence.

This bill is never going to make it out of the Senate. Does anyone really think that it is filibuster proof?

[Claydon]

Having seen the massive oil/natural gas infrastructure of the southern US over the last few days this thing will die in the senate.

If this government really cares about pollution concerns then lets actually get nuclear power facilities going and take older coal burning facilities off line. If this government really cares about pollution then lets do real CAFE standards (this is where I depart with my republican friends). Lets mandate minimum of 50 mpg vehicles in 5 years and encourage the use of diesel, and truly jump onto coal gasification, and CO2 sequestration. This cap and trade is for Al Gore and company, it is total horseshit.

[freegood]

Seeing yelram, tockit, casesensitive and cohorts getting pissy, whiny and annoyed by what I'm doing is positive proof that I'm doing it right.
Keep playing guys, you're even managing to be mildly entertaining sometimes.

+1

[Stax]

Having seen the massive oil/natural gas infrastructure of the southern US over the last few days this thing will die in the senate.

If this government really cares about pollution concerns then lets actually get nuclear power facilities going and take older coal burning facilities off line. If this government really cares about pollution then lets do real CAFE standards (this is where I depart with my republican friends). Lets mandate minimum of 50 mpg vehicles in 5 years and encourage the use of diesel, and truly jump onto coal gasification, and CO2 sequestration. This cap and trade is for Al Gore and company, it is total horseshit.

Obama's started talking about nuclear, one of the few issues I tend to agree with Republicans on (and, free, of trying to separate himself from McCain who loved nuclear, seems like Obama's seen the light somewhat).

CAFE standards increases are, of course, great (though 50 in 5 years just ain't gonna' happen). Like, US car companies still make a big deal out of a car getting 30 MPG. That should be a basic number, not a "LOOK AT THIS!" number. But ultimately some form of this bill is necessary. The environment and a distant, slow moving energy problem is the prime example of something a purely free market system will have a problem with. If left to the market, will the necessary work and research be started in time to fix the problems before they come up?

[Das Kahlua]

CAFE standards increases are, of course, great (though 50 in 5 years just ain't gonna' happen). Like, US car companies still make a big deal out of a car getting 30 MPG. That should be a basic number, not a "LOOK AT THIS!" number. But ultimately some form of this bill is necessary. The environment and a distant, slow moving energy problem is the prime example of something a purely free market system will have a problem with. If left to the market, will the necessary work and research be started in time to fix the problems before they come up?

Except that every time the government tries to fix the problem, they only end up creating 10 new problems. The CAFE standards are bullshit, pure bullshit, and won't accomplish anything. The fact is that Obama and the Democrats specifically want to target SUVs with their new CAFE standards--except that SUVs were created as a loop-hole from the previous CAFE standards enacted during the Carter administration. So now Obama is trying to fix a 'mistake' created by Carter's actions 30 years ago; what current mistakes is a President 30 years from now going to have to try and fix?

As for the free market addressing the environmental 'issues,' it's become chic to be 'Green' these days, something that was lead by the free market. This movement, powered by the free market, has led to more change than the government ever could have, so to answer your question, yes.

[Stax]

Except that every time the government tries to fix the problem, they only end up creating 10 new problems. The CAFE standards are bullshit, pure bullshit, and won't accomplish anything. The fact is that Obama and the Democrats specifically want to target SUVs with their new CAFE standards--except that SUVs were created as a loop-hole from the previous CAFE standards enacted during the Carter administration. So now Obama is trying to fix a 'mistake' created by Carter's actions 30 years ago; what current mistakes is a President 30 years from now going to have to try and fix?

CAFE standards are not bullshit, they're just trumped up. Requiring a basic level of performance is a good thing, it just doesn't fix as much of the problem as it gets made out to sometimes.


As for the free market addressing the environmental 'issues,' it's become chic to be 'Green' these days, something that was lead by the free market. This movement, powered by the free market, has led to more change than the government ever could have, so to answer your question, yes.

Oil and Coal are two gigantic American business interests. Even WITHOUT those corporate pressures the free market is set up for those companies to shift direction when it's fiscally sensible, not necessarily when it's environmentally sensible.

[Das Kahlua]

CAFE standards are not bullshit, they're just trumped up. Requiring a basic level of performance is a good thing, it just doesn't fix as much of the problem as it gets made out to sometimes.

I'm going to strongly disagree here. Anytime you have a bunch of Washington bureaucrats who don't have engineering degrees or any experience in the auto industry dictating what kind of cars to build to the auto makers is a recipe for disaster.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cars that are increasingly fuel efficient, but that is the trend in which the auto industry is already headed. Every car maker in the world is putting out more and more fuel efficient cars; having Washington give them ultimatums is not going to make the next technological break through happen any faster, no matter how much they might want it to.

Instead of burdening the auto makers with more and more restrictions and higher and higher taxes, how about we ease up, provide them with more working capital to invest in new technology, and maybe, just maybe, the free market will provide us something great. It is, afterall, the only thing that has.

Oil and Coal are two gigantic American business interests. Even WITHOUT those corporate pressures the free market is set up for those companies to shift direction when it's fiscally sensible, not necessarily when it's environmentally sensible.

And yet oil companies like Exxon-Mobile, Shell and BP have invested heavily in alternative energies for decades. Well, until recently when Shell fully divested themselves of their holdings in alternative energies because they have found that they are not economically viable, despite what Obama and Pelosi might claim.

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

He no speaky good engrish, so instead of attempting to respond with intelligence, he uses the rep he's gained over his years of wasting time here to slap down anyone who's opinion challenges his in any way. He's basically a sad piece of shit. I really feel bad for his pathetic existence.

+1 with a bullet.....hopefully headed fukstickrunamok's way

[Das Kahlua]

+1 with a bullet.....hopefully headed fukstickrunamok's way

Oh boy, here we go again.

[Claydon]

fuld is worthless and just trolls around with negative comments, but like the rest of his useless people, I choose just to ignore him, and I advise you all do the same.

[Whiffleball]

This is one of my US senators, James Inhofe.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2ujlelf.jpg

He's best known for being "outraged by the outrage" over Abu Ghraib, calling the Red Cross a "bleeding heart", arguing Israel has a right to its land "because God said so", and on the Senate floor producing a photo of his family and saying he was "really proud … that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship."

(No, he's not the one who called the airing of Schindler's List on TV as "irresponsible sexual behavior" due to depictions of nudity, or the one who thought southeast Oklahoma is plagued by out-of-control lesbianism. That's my other senator.)

Inhofe is also an outspoken skeptic of global warming and has said that the Waxman-Markey bill will be "dead on arrival" when it comes to the Senate. Now he's ordered an inquiry into a "suppressed" EPA report that questions the science behind climate change: (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/)

The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.

"He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla, a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he's ordered an investigation. "We're going to expose it."

According to internal e-mails that have been made public by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Carlin's boss told him in March that his material would not be incorporated into a broader EPA finding and ordered Carlin to stop working on the climate change issue.

But even the FOX article notes Carlin isn't a scientist. Over on his Web site, (http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/) Carlin lists his doctorate as being in economics and his profession as economist. Looking over his publications, you can quickly determine that his views on environmental protection are those of a right-wing free marketer more concerned with crunching numbers than saving lives and preserving the planet.

He wrote a piece defending cost-benefit analysis in replacing regulation. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv28n3/v28n3-3.pdf) Basically, conservatives tout CBA as a totally neutral way to balance the cost of regulation against the benefits regulations bring. In other words, it places a monetary valuation on human life, our health and Mother Nature.

Of course, this is intrinsically flawed, as pointed out by the Center for Progressive Reform (http://www.progressiveregulation.org/perspectives/costbenefit.cfm):

Efforts to value life illustrate the basic problems. Cost-benefit analysis implicitly equates the risk of death with death itself, when in fact they are quite different and should be accounted for separately in considering the benefits of regulatory actions. Cost-benefit analysis also ignores the fact that citizens are concerned about risks to their families and others as well as themselves, ignores the fact that market decisions are often very different from political decisions, and ignores the incomparability of many different types of risks to human life. The same kinds of problems arise in attempting to define in monetary terms the benefits of protecting human health and the environment.

Second, the use of discounting systematically and improperly downgrades the importance of environmental regulation. While discounting makes sense in comparing alternative financial investments, it cannot reasonably be used to make a choice between preventing harms to present generations and preventing similar harms to future generations. Nor can discounting reasonably be used even to make a choice between harms to the current generation; choosing between preventing an automobile fatality and a cancer death does not turn on prevailing rates of return on financial investments. In addition, discounting tends to trivialize long-term environmental risks, minimizing the very real threat our society faces from potential catastrophes and irreversible environmental harms, such as those posed by global warming and nuclear waste. Significantly, all of the studies suggesting that regulation kills people because it is so expensive employed discounting, which caused regulatory benefits to appear to shrink and regulatory costs to grow.

Third, cost-benefit analysis ignores the question of who suffers as a result of environmental problems and, therefore, threatens to reinforce existing patterns of economic and social inequality. Cost-benefit analysis treats questions about equity as, at best, side issues, contradicting the widely shared view that equity should count in public policy. In fact, poor countries, communities, and individuals are likely to express less "willingness to pay" to avoid environmental harms, simply because they have fewer resources. Therefore, cost-benefit analysis would justify imposing greater environmental burdens on them than on their wealthier counterparts. With this kind of analysis, the poor get poorer.

Finally, cost-benefit analysis fails to produce the greater objectivity and transparency promised by its proponents. Cost-benefit analysis rests on a series of assumptions and value judgments that cannot remotely be described as objective. Moreover, the highly complex, resource-intensive, and expert-driven nature of this method makes it extremely difficult for the public to understand and participate in the process. Thus, in practice, cost-benefit analysis is anything but transparent.

Beyond these inherent flaws, cost-benefit analysis suffers from serious defects in practical implementation. Many benefits of public health and environmental protection have not been quantified and cannot easily be quantified given the limits on time and resources; thus, in practice, cost-benefit analysis is often akin to shooting in the dark. Even when the data gaps are supposedly acknowledged, public discussion tends to focus on the misleading numeric values produced by cost-benefit analysis while relevant but non-monetized factors are simply ignored. Finally, the cost side of cost-benefit analysis is frequently exaggerated, because analysts routinely fail to account for the economies that can be achieved through innovative efforts to meet new environmental standards.

Real-world examples of cost-benefit analysis demonstrate the strange lengths to which this flawed method can be taken. For example, the consulting group Arthur D. Little, in a study for the Czech Republic, concluded that encouraging smoking among Czech citizens was beneficial to the government because it caused citizens to die earlier and thus reduced government expenditures on pensions, housing, and health care. In another study, analysts calculated the value of children’s lives saved by car seats, by estimating the amount of time required to fasten the seats correctly and then assigning a value to the time based on the mothers’ actual or imputed hourly wage. These studies are not the work of some lunatic fringe; on the contrary, they apply methodologies that are perfectly conventional within the cost-benefit framework.

Carlin, operating under the sort of liberty that only comes when one has no idea of what one is speaking of, also proposed a novel way of combating climate change (this is was before he began to believe it might not exist). In this article on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, (http://pennumbra.com/issues/pdfs/155-6/Carlin.pdf) he shits on the idea that governments can really do anything through regulation, and suggests instead that we engage in some geoengineering. Essentially, we would inject aerosol into the stratosphere (with military jets or balloons; I'm not making this up) and then let the aerosol combine with other molecules to form sulfuric acid. Bound to water, the aerosol droplets would absorb and reflect back into to space 1 to 3 percent of the sun's rays.

The problem with this proposal is that it's incredibly dangerous and as yet unproven. Alan Robock, a Rutgers University climate scientist, wrote a really good article listing 20 reasons why geoengineering isn't such a hot idea. (http://www.thebulletin.org/files/064002006_0.pdf) These reasons include: making the ocean more acidic, depleting the ozone, damaging plants due to their dependence on sunligh, whitening of the sky, and a whole host of unexpected consequences geoengineering could have. Essentially, Carlin and other advocates of geoengineering suggest we should play God with the elements rather than engage in the outrageous concept that we reduce our energy-consumption habits.

Well, who knows if Carlin even still argues for geoengineering these days. He's skeptical that global warming is even happening. So what does he argue in this "suppressed" report, covered up by the evil "warmists"? The folks over at Real Climate sum it up quite nicely, and touch on his past promotion of geoengineering as well: (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/#more-691)

Their main points are nicely summarised thus: a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date, b) the globe is cooling!, c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous, d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree…, e) the recession will save us!, f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and g) Scafetta and West's statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this "evidence", they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling.

Devastating eh?

One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.

But it gets worse, what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it. The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we've discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc. I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to compete with the four rounds of international scientific and governmental review of the IPCC or the rounds of review of the CCSP reports….

They don't even notice the contradictions in their own cites. For instance, they show a figure that demonstrates that galactic cosmic ray and solar trends are non-existent from 1957 on, and yet cheerfully quote Scafetta and West who claim that almost all of the recent trend is solar driven! They claim that climate sensitivity is very small while failing to realise that this implies that solar variability can't have any effect either. They claim that GCM simulations produced trends over the twentieth century of 1.6 to 3.74ºC - which is simply (and bizarrely) wrong (though with all due respect, that one seems to come directly from Mr. Gregory). Even more curious, Carlin appears to be a big fan of geo-engineering, but how this squares with his apparent belief that we know nothing about what drives climate, is puzzling. A sine qua non of geo-engineering is that we need models to be able to predict what is likely to happen, and if you think they are all wrong, how could you have any faith that you could effectively manage a geo-engineering approach?

Finally, they end up with the oddest claim in the submission: That because human welfare has increased over the twentieth century at a time when CO2 was increasing, this somehow implies that no amount of CO2 increases can ever cause a danger to human society. This is just boneheadly stupid.

So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that's the best they can do, the EPA's ruling is on pretty safe ground.

Sorry for not parsing the above quotes more, but all of it is pretty necessary reading. It's just too bad that climate change deniers like my senator, who is entrusted with the responsibility of making laws in the interests of his citizens, are more interested in advancing bogus reports based on dubious evidence than finally taking meaningful action against climate change.

The Waxman-Markey bill is not a perfect piece of legislation, mind you. But it's a damn slight better than sticking your head in the sand.

[Debo]

Another interesting note is that the number of critics is currently growing. It must be the warm weather.

The Climate Change Climate Change

The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.



By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL



Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.


Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.


The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)


The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.


Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.


The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.


Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.


This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.
Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

[Infotainment]

How do you explain the direct correlation to the suns solar flare activity and the heating and cooling activities of Earth? No one has ever been able to explain this to me. Wouldn't the object that causes heat on the earth be the primary cause for the rise and fall of temperatures on the earth?

[Debo]

How do you explain the direct correlation to the suns solar flare activity and the heating and cooling activities of Earth? No one has ever been able to explain this to me. Wouldn't the object that causes heat on the earth be the primary cause for the rise and fall of temperatures on the earth?

Blaming the sun makes it difficult for Congress to pass a law to solve our problems. It is easier to blame Big Oil and Hummers.

[tockit]

Originally Posted by Infotainment http://forum.gorillamask.net/images/solido/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?p=632623#post632623)
How do you explain the direct correlation to the suns solar flare activity and the heating and cooling activities of Earth? No one has ever been able to explain this to me. Wouldn't the object that causes heat on the earth be the primary cause for the rise and fall of temperatures on the earth?

Blaming the sun makes it difficult for Congress to pass a law to solve our problems. It is easier to blame Big Oil and Hummers.
Its all a big power grab.

You have reputable scientists now saying that the sun is going into a solar hibernation cycle after a period of warming.

Nice how the Democrats added 300 pages to the bill that just went through the house the day before the vote at 3:00am in the morning. I'm sure that was all on the up and up!

Al Gore, is putting the full court press on the liberals to try to push this agenda through before the wheels fall off the global warming band wagon!

[tockit]

Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report

Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst's report questioning the science behind global warming.

By Judson Berger
FOXNews.com
Monday, June 29, 2009

EPA analyst Alan Carlin raised questions about the impact of global warming on areas like Greenland. Shown here is an iceberg off Ammassalik Island, Greenland.

A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.

The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.

"He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla, a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he's ordered an investigation. "We're going to expose it."

The controversy comes after the House of Representatives passed a landmark bill to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, one that Inhofe said will be "dead on arrival" in the Senate despite President Obama's energy adviser voicing confidence in the measure.

According to internal e-mails that have been made public by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Carlin's boss told him in March that his material would not be incorporated into a broader EPA finding and ordered Carlin to stop working on the climate change issue. The draft EPA finding released in April lists six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, that the EPA says threaten public health and welfare.

An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist -- not a scientist -- included "no original research" in his report. The official said that Carlin "has not been muzzled in the agency at all," but stressed that his report was entirely "unsolicited."

"It was something that he did on his own," the official said. "Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up ... a set of comments."

Despite the EPA official's remarks, Carlin told FOXNews.com on Monday that his boss, National Center for Environmental Economics Director Al McGartland, appeared to be pressured into reassigning him.

Carlin said he doesn't know whether the White House intervened to suppress his report but claimed it's clear "they would not be happy about it if they knew about it," and that McGartland seemed to be feeling pressure from somewhere up the chain of command.

Carlin said McGartland told him he had to pull him off the climate change issue.

"It was reassigning you or losing my job, and I didn't want to lose my job," Carlin said, paraphrasing what he claimed were McGartland's comments to him. "My inference (was) that he was receiving some sort of higher-level pressure."

Carlin said he personally does not think there is a need to regulate carbon dioxide, since "global temperatures are going down." He said his report expressed a "good bit of doubt" on the connection between the two.

Specifically, the report noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend over the past 11 years, that scientists do not necessarily believe that storms will become more frequent or more intense due to global warming, and that the theory that temperatures will cause Greenland ice to rapidly melt has been "greatly diminished."

Carlin, in a March 16 e-mail, argued that his comments are "valid, significant" and would be critical to the EPA finding.
McGartland, though, wrote back the next day saying he had decided not to forward his comments.

"The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision," he wrote, according to the e-mails released by CEI. "I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

He later wrote an e-mail urging Carlin to "move on to other issues and subjects."
"I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc., at least until we see what EPA is going to do with climate," McGartland wrote.

The EPA said in a written statement that Carlin's opinions were in fact considered, and that he was not even part of the working group dealing with climate change in the first place.

"Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This administration and this EPA administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making," the statement said. "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue.

Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

The e-mail exchanges and suggestions of political interference sparked a backlash from Republicans in Congress.
Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also wrote a letter last week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging the agency to reopen its comment period on the finding. The EPA has since denied the request.

Citing the internal e-mails, the Republican congressmen wrote that the EPA was exhibiting an "agency culture set in a predetermined course."
"It documents at least one instance in which the public was denied access to significant scientific literature and raises substantial questions about what additional evidence may have been suppressed," they wrote.

In a written statement, Issa said the administration is "actively seeking to withhold new data in order to justify a political conclusion."
"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Sensenbrenner said in a statement, adding that the "repression" of Carlin's report casts doubt on the entire finding.

Carlin said he's concerned that he's seeing "science being decided at the presidential level."

"Now Mr. Obama is in effect directly or indirectly saying that CO2 causes global temperatures to rise and that we have to do something about it. ... That's normally a scientific judgment and he's in effect judging what the science says," he said. "We need to look at it harder."

The controversy is similar to one under the Bush administration -- only the administration was taking the opposite stance. In that case, scientist James Hansen claimed the administration was trying to keep him from speaking out and calling for reductions in greenhouse gases.
FOX News' Major Garrett contributed to this report.

[Stax]

How do you explain the direct correlation to the suns solar flare activity and the heating and cooling activities of Earth? No one has ever been able to explain this to me. Wouldn't the object that causes heat on the earth be the primary cause for the rise and fall of temperatures on the earth?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

That page is a somewhat weak summary, but read ANY of the studies it cites under "Other studies on solar influence on climate".

[Stax]

An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist -- not a scientist -- included "no original research" in his report. The official said that Carlin "has not been muzzled in the agency at all," but stressed that his report was entirely "unsolicited."


"Now Mr. Obama is in effect directly or indirectly saying that CO2 causes global temperatures to rise and that we have to do something about it. ... That's normally a scientific judgment and he's in effect judging what the science says," he said. "We need to look at it harder."

No, pretty sure Mr. Obama is saying that scientific judgement should be left in the hands of... Scientists?

[Debo]

No, pretty sure Mr. Obama is saying that scientific judgement should be left in the hands of... Scientists?

Surprisingly, you didn't quote any of the scientists listed in the article that I posted.

[Stax]

Surprisingly, you didn't quote any of the scientists listed in the article that I posted.

Since I wasn't responding to you I don't think it's surprising. The minority-status of CC deniers is not really at issue, it's a well-documented fact through surveys of both scientists themselves and the peer-reviewed journal articles they write that denial is a minority viewpoint. If that's what you hold as a scientist, fine, but Flat-Earthers are not going to set Naval-circumnavigation plans and CC deniers probably won't set climate policy.

[redsox39]

fine, but Flat-Earthers are not going to set Naval-circumnavigation plans and CC deniers probably won't set climate policy.

Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled.

Fucking Flatearthers.

Fuck me man. Next up, Micheal Jordan don't know shit about basketball.

[Nosebuckle]

So Stax, Whiff, or anyone else carrying water for this bill, can you guys let everyone know how much warming this bill could avert, in say, fifty years? Might put things in perspective considering the majority of the world can't or won't pass or comply with similar pieces of legislation. A little hint, it's pretty insignificant.

[Das Kahlua]

No, pretty sure Mr. Obama is saying that scientific judgement should be left in the hands of... Scientists?

Like Al Gore or himself?

[freegood]

So Stax, Whiff, or anyone else carrying water for this bill, can you guys let everyone know how much warming this bill could avert, in say, fifty years? Might put things in perspective considering the majority of the world can't or won't pass or comply with similar pieces of legislation. A little hint, it's pretty insignificant.

Who knows what the bill will be like in the final form?

There's plenty of other benefits directly related to finding alternative forms of cheap energy. Plus, if it's really cheap, it creates a moral imperative for other countries to adopt the same technologies the United States pioneers.

Even if Congress does pass the bill, some Euros are already criticizing it as falling short of what they have pledged (http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/europeans-demand-more-from-americans/)...

[Stax]

Like Al Gore or himself?

Al Gore doesn't make policy any more since he does not hold elected office. Obama is in office and thus crafts policy.

[Debo]

Who knows what the bill will be like in the final form?

There's plenty of other benefits directly related to finding alternative forms of cheap energy. Plus, if it's really cheap, it creates a moral imperative for other countries to adopt the same technologies the United States pioneers.

Even if Congress does pass the bill, some Euros are already criticizing it as falling short of what they have pledged (http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/europeans-demand-more-from-americans/)...

Green energy isn't cheaper than what we currently use. If it was, the government wouldn't be forcing us to change over to it. We would be doing it ourselves.

[Das Kahlua]

Al Gore doesn't make policy any more since he does not hold elected office. Obama is in office and thus crafts policy.

You said who's 'scientific judgment' should be trusted. Both of them have stated unequivocally that the seas will rise, the ice caps will melt, crops will die and people will die all over the world, unless they are put in charge. Last time I checked, neither of them are scientists, and even the most pro-Global Warming scientists are wary to say what the two of them have said time and time again.

The fact is, all of these projections about what might happen with GW are based on computer models, all of which combined have failed to accurately predict anything. We were told after 2005 and Hurricane Katrina that it was caused by GW and that the following years hurricanes would get worse. Wrong. We were told 30 years ago that we were most likely going to face an ice age; now, we're being told we're facing global warming. Wrong, wrong.

So, 30 years ago, the Earth is cold. Then in the 80s and 90s it warms up. Now, we're being told we're facing possibly several decades of cooling followed by more warming. Does that sound like it is caused by man and carbon emission, or possibly a natural cycle?

[shimian]

Scientists can barely tell next week's weather with much accuracy, much less 30 years.

[Das Kahlua]

Scientists can barely tell next week's weather with much accuracy, much less 30 years.

There's a pretty big difference between the two. For one's local news, they try and predict exactly what will happen on an hourly basis. When talking about things like GW, they're more concerned with larger meteorological trends.

That being said, they don't have a strong history of accuracy for predicting either the short- or long-term weather patterns, so it's rather foolish to give them the benefit of the doubt, with such sketchy science, especially when to do so would have such a horrific impact on the US.

[Nosebuckle]

Classic case of public policy being all cost and no benefit.

[Das Kahlua]

WASHINGTON — President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) on Sunday praised the energy bill passed by the House late last week as an “extraordinary first step,” but he spoke out against a provision that would impose trade penalties on countries that do not accept limits on global warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) pollution.

“At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/r/recession_and_depression/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and we’ve seen a significant drop in global trade,” Mr. Obama said, “I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/protectionism_trade/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) signals out there.”


He added, “I think there may be other ways of doing it than with a tariff approach.”
The passage of the House bill on Friday night was an important, if tentative, victory for the president, becoming the first time either chamber of Congress had approved a mandatory ceiling on the gases linked to global warming.


Mr. Obama, hoping to build momentum in the Senate after the narrow victory in the House, delayed the start of a Sunday golf game to speak to a small group of reporters in the Oval Office.


He acknowledged that the initial targets for reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases set by the House bill were quite modest and would probably not satisfy the governments of other countries or many environmental groups. But he said he hoped to build on those early targets in fashioning a more robust program in the future as part of his administration’s efforts to move the nation from an economy based on fossil fuels toward one built on renewable energy sources.


Mr. Obama predicted that similar energy legislation would face a difficult slog through the Senate and require months of tough negotiations and additional compromises. The horse-trading and vote-buying that helped House leaders secure a 219-to-212 victory will be magnified in the Senate, where several powerful committee leaders are already asserting authority and Democratic moderates hold more power than their counterparts in the House.


Mr. Obama set no timetable for Senate action but exhorted its leadership to take the House bill as a benchmark and “seize the day.”


The president used the interview to put the House vote in the context of his broader efforts to modernize the American economy by shifting to cleaner and more efficient forms of energy.


He said the House bill was a “comprehensive approach” that included a cap-and-trade program to limit heat-trapping gas emissions, incentives for new energy efficiency measures and support for wind and solar energy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/solar_energy/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) as well as nuclear power and so-called clean coal technology.


He said that those measures, combined with the administration’s new automobile mileage standards and stimulus spending on research and home weatherization, represented a sea change in American energy policy.


“I think it’s fair to say that over the first six months we’ve seen more action on shifting ourselves away from dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels than at any time in several decades,” Mr. Obama said.


Mr. Obama linked the energy and health care fights, saying that major revisions in both were necessary because “everybody knows what we’re doing isn’t working.”
“The status quo is unacceptable,” he said.


As he has done in the health care discussions, Mr. Obama refused to deliver definitive judgments on specific provisions of the energy bill, leaving the legislative wrangling to members of Congress. But he said his bottom line for energy and climate change legislation included meaningful reductions in heat-trapping gas emissions, strong incentives for energy efficiency, protections for consumers and businesses against spikes in energy costs, and deficit neutrality.


“If it meets those broad criteria,” he said, “then it’s a bill I want to embrace.”
The House bill contains a provision, inserted in the middle of the night before the vote Friday, that requires the president, starting in 2020, to impose a “border adjustment” — or tariff — on certain goods from countries that do not act to limit their global warming emissions. The president can waive the tariffs only if he receives explicit permission from Congress.


The provision was added to secure the votes of Rust Belt lawmakers who were wavering on the bill because of fears of job losses in heavy industry.


In the floor debate on the bill Friday, one of its authors, Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said, “As we act, we can and must ensure that the U.S. energy-intensive industries are not placed at a competitive disadvantage by nations that have not made a similar commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.”


In the interview on Sunday, Mr. Obama said American industries like steel, aluminum, paper and glass had legitimate concerns about competition from developing nations. But he warned that trade sanctions based on the extent to which other countries curbed carbon dioxide emissions might be illegal and counterproductive.


Mr. Obama has sometimes sent mixed signals about his attitude toward free trade. In the Democratic presidential primary, he was fiercely critical of several free trade agreements with China, Caribbean countries and Mexico for failing to include strict enough environmental standards. He argued that the United States should threaten to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/north_american_free_trade_agreement/index.html?inline=nyt-org) to renegotiate protections for the environment as well as workers’ rights.


But as president, Mr. Obama has not made a priority of renegotiating Nafta or other trade agreements. And he has always indicated that though he favors adjusting some rules, he supports the principle of free trade.


In the interview, Mr. Obama had few words of comfort for those who may have taken a political risk by voting for the House climate change bill, and no threats for the 44 House Democrats who defied their leadership to oppose it.


“I think those 44 Democrats are sensitive to the immediate political climate of uncertainty around this issue,” Mr. Obama said. “They’ve got to run every two years, and I completely understand that.”


Many of the Democrats who voted against the legislation represent districts that rely heavily on coal for electricity and manufacturing for jobs.


Mr. Obama said the House bill contained transitional assistance for these regions.
But he expressed scorn for the Republicans who fought the bill in the House. He noted that some of them had predicted political doom for those who voted for it, recalling the 1993 battle over an energy tax that failed and helped Republicans gain control of the House a year later.


Those Republicans “are 16 years behind the times,” he said, comparing their position to that of Republican leaders in the energy and health care debates of the early Clinton years.


“They’re fighting not even the last war,” he said. “They’re fighting three wars ago.”
David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/politics/29climate.html?ref=global-home

So... Obama is going to tax the bezeebus out of any American-based companies that so much as exist, since CO2 is now considered pollution, but places like China are exempt and we aren't going to place tariffs on Chinese imports to make up for the difference in cost.

vBookie on how long it takes for all US companies to either: a) export their labor overseas or b) go completely bankrupt.

[Mustard]

I've learned the following:

Never underestimate the power of the Government to keep redeeming itself in its perpetual snowballing failure.

Mr. Obama linked the energy and health care fights, saying that major revisions in both were necessary because “everybody knows what we’re doing isn’t working.”
“The status quo is unacceptable,” he said.
Ok sure. I agree with you. But going from a system that isn't working to another system that won't work isn't the right way to go about changing the status quo.

"Oh shit, there's a fire. Quick, let's use this gasoline to put it out.

Hmm, that didn't seem to work. Quick, lets throw these babies on the fire and see if that works."

[mongo]

how much tax money can we squeeze out of people and businesses that are already struggling, that is the question.

[Das Kahlua]

I've learned the following:

Never underestimate the power of the Government to keep redeeming itself in its perpetual snowballing failure.


Ok sure. I agree with you. But going from a system that isn't working to another system that won't work isn't the right way to go about changing the status quo.

"Oh shit, there's a fire. Quick, let's use this gasoline to put it out.

Hmm, that didn't seem to work. Quick, lets throw these babies on the fire and see if that works."

Dude, don't ask me.

Obama himself said that his plan would raise the electricity bill for everyone, and yet people still voted for him.

This is just about the worst idea known to man, and worse it's insider trading to the max.

The company that is getting all sorts of these contracts, from the environmental overhauls to the new computerized medical records--GE. The same company which runs NBC, a 'news' network completely in the bag for Obama from the start. Oh, BTW, the head of GE is on Obama's economic recovery panel, and GE is getting all sorts of no bid contracts for the medical infrastructure. I'm sure that is pure coincidence.

Oh, another fun fact, GE owns the majority share of all the alternative energy sources that have been developed within the US for the last decade.

I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that all these dominoes are all falling into line at the right time.

Anyone else have anymore Cheney/Haliburton conspiricies they want to get off their chests?

[Mustard]

Dude, don't ask me.

Obama himself said that his plan would raise the electricity bill for everyone, and yet people still voted for him.

This is just about the worst idea known to man, and worse it's insider trading to the max.

The company that is getting all sorts of these contracts, from the environmental overhauls to the new computerized medical records--GE. The same company which runs NBC, a 'news' network completely in the bag for Obama from the start. Oh, BTW, the head of GE is on Obama's economic recovery panel, and GE is getting all sorts of no bid contracts for the medical infrastructure. I'm sure that is pure coincidence.

Oh, another fun fact, GE owns the majority share of all the alternative energy sources that have been developed within the US for the last decade.

I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that all these dominoes are all falling into line at the right time.

Anyone else have anymore Cheney/Haliburton conspiricies they want to get off their chests?
I wouldn't raise an eyebrow to any of that.

With regards to Obama's policies, I find myself at odds with him about a quarter of the time. And when that does happen, I really fucking hate it. I wonder to myself, "are these the policies I really voted for?" But then I also remember that he reversed the ban on stem-cell research, among other things I wanted to see, and then I remember I had the opportunity to vote for McCain instead, and I say to myself, "you can't please all of the people all of the time," and that is enough of a rationale for me to realize that had it gone the other way, and McCain was elected, (with "Jesus walked with the dinosaurs" Sarah Palin) I would be far more at odds with his decisions overall, and far more terrified at the prospect of her being one heartbeat away from being our country's chief executive. So in the long run, while I can't say I'm happy with a number of his decisions, in a majority sense I am happy, and while I would like things to go more 'my way', it just wouldn't be right to look the gift horse in the mouth. I got what I wanted on November 4th. Having a knee-jerk reaction to every single thing I disagree with isn't going to make things any better.

I realize this will make no sense what-so-ever for the mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers, but since I don't give a fuck what they're told to think by Rush Limbaugh and Co. anyway... they can all pound sand.

[Infotainment]

Every trucking company in the US just collectively shit their pants at one time.

[Das Kahlua]

I wouldn't raise an eyebrow to any of that.

With regards to Obama's policies, I find myself at odds with him about a quarter of the time. And when that does happen, I really fucking hate it. I wonder to myself, "are these the policies I really voted for?" But then I also remember that he reversed the ban on stem-cell research, among other things I wanted to see, and then I remember I had the opportunity to vote for McCain instead, and I say to myself, "you can't please all of the people all of the time," and that is enough of a rationale for me to realize that had it gone the other way, and McCain was elected, (with "Jesus walked with the dinosaurs" Sarah Palin) I would be far more at odds with his decisions overall, and far more terrified at the prospect of her being one heartbeat away from being our country's chief executive. So in the long run, while I can't say I'm happy with a number of his decisions, in a majority sense I am happy, and while I would like things to go more 'my way', it just wouldn't be right to look the gift horse in the mouth. I got what I wanted on November 4th. Having a knee-jerk reaction to every single thing I disagree with isn't going to make things any better.

I realize this will make no sense what-so-ever for the mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers, but since I don't give a fuck what they're told to think by Rush Limbaugh and Co. anyway... they can all pound sand.

There are rabid conservatives who treat Rush's word as gold, you are right, just as there are rabid liberals who treat Obama the same way. I don't consider you one of those, so it doesn't surprise me that some of the things that Obama has done turn your stomach.

He's a man first, which means he's fallible. I don't fault the guy for that. In a way, I don't get as angry about the policies that he tries to enact as I did about some of Bush's shit, because I fully expected Obama to be doing what he's currently doing.

I think, if anything, I am more frustrated at the Republicans who aren't articulating their message well, for putting up people like McCain and Palin as their best hope against Obama, and for no one in the public sphere being willing to stand up against the Obama machine. Yeah, as he's said, 'he won,' and that gives him the right and power to lead, but I would like it to be a little more difficult to pass all these policies than it has been.

[atoms]

I think, if anything, I am more frustrated at the Republicans who aren't articulating their message well, for putting up people like McCain and Palin as their best hope against Obama, and for no one in the public sphere being willing to stand up against the Obama machine. Yeah, as he's said, 'he won,' and that gives him the right and power to lead, but I would like it to be a little more difficult to pass all these policies than it has been.

Welcome to where the democratic part was for the 8 years of the Bush adminstration....(some might argue just the first 6....but frankly I didn't even see where a democratic congress changed much but the rhetoric) Seriously the republican's problems figuring out what they are doing is about like the democrats having to get behind Kerry.

Kahlua...while not always (may be even not often) agreeing with where you are coming from, I've enjoyed your frankness and ability to be open.

Sometimes I'm not even sure how these things should work....I understand the appearance....probably even the reality of GE corruption. But on the other hand....if you were wanting to implement "green" policies....it would make sense that the company that is the leading large corporation in green technology be a big player in this. That is, GE has a lot to offer (as well as a lot to gain). At what point is it synergy (two entities working together for both their mutual benefit) and at what point is it corruption. Heck, I don't have the answer. I guess I'm just throwing out that it isn't necessarily all about corruption....it might on some levels make a whole lot of sense. However, even if the intentions are good......what's to keep the situation from degrading in the future....again...I don't know.

[Das Kahlua]

Sometimes I'm not even sure how these things should work....I understand the appearance....probably even the reality of GE corruption. But on the other hand....if you were wanting to implement "green" policies....it would make sense that the company that is the leading large corporation in green technology be a big player in this. That is, GE has a lot to offer (as well as a lot to gain). At what point is it synergy (two entities working together for both their mutual benefit) and at what point is it corruption. Heck, I don't have the answer. I guess I'm just throwing out that it isn't necessarily all about corruption....it might on some levels make a whole lot of sense. However, even if the intentions are good......what's to keep the situation from degrading in the future....again...I don't know.

I guess, for me, the problem starts when news organizations that are supposed to be objective and reports the facts and only the facts are owned and controlled by companies that have a vested interest in global warming being real. Furthermore, when NBC and MSNBC were in the bag for Obama through the election, with the understanding that Obama would take care of GE if elected, that reeks of dubious quid pro quo dealings. The concept of GW is most definitely portrayed as a moral one, with the fate of the world held in the balance, but in reality it has become big business with a lot of money and power behind it.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that GW is real and man-made. Why in the world would we grant developing nations like China, India and South Africa exemptions to carbon caps, with such huge stakes? It's all politics, from the local to the international levels.

The planet has undergone ice ages before and has come out of ice ages, the poles have changed polarity at least once, rivers have grown, dried up and even changed direction, all without human interference. To think that we can understand, let alone control, the insanely complex planet that we live on is huberis to the extreme, yet apparently Earth is heating up at uncontrollable rates because of some SUVs.

In typical Washington fashion, we're taking a situation that we don't fully understand and acting in the most aggressive fashion possible instead of exercising any form of moderation or restraint. Despite what Obama or Al Gore might claim, this is not settled science, there are plenty of experts who disagree with the claims of the GW alarmists; perhaps we should slow down, and take some time to actually study this situation objectively instead of taking extreme action that would decimate our economy for decades to come.

[freegood]

Green energy isn't cheaper than what we currently use. If it was, the government wouldn't be forcing us to change over to it. We would be doing it ourselves.

I did say finding cheap energy... The government's strongest involvement imo should be increasing funding for research in efficiency, storage and transmission whether through a shift in subsidies given to fossil fuel companies or reducing the latter wholesale.

Wind power as it is can rival coal in price, but it's limited by our current on demand infrastructure, hampered by neighborhood activists who claim to be environmentalists, and ultimately there's a global waiting list for more turbines. We can and probably are putting research money into cheaper and more efficient methods of wind generation and turbine production. And also researching more methods to store capacity when days aren't windy/sunny.

The main issue when the argument pits wind/solar against fossil fuels is that the costs are already sunk for gas/coal/oil. Health concerns with dirty air is counted as an externality. Wholesale transmission and distribution are already invested. Our energy grid is made specifically for some plants to fire more often when load is higher. A cheaper and better way to store energy would help existing fossil fuel plants become more efficient by running a higher load at night despite no one using the excess energy.

From what I've seen of the bill, I don't think Congress tackles these issues head on or not as much as I would like. Their approach is more like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of the 1970s. It was because companies felt it wasn't cheap to do by themselves that the government had to force them clean up. The same arguments about liberty, economy and freedom were used then as it was now.

You can argue costs and lost money all you want, but our rivers are significantly better and the cities suffer less from acid rain than the 40 years since compared to the 40 years before those acts were passed. Just visit Shanghai if you want a glimpse at what it was like.

I think Americans today demand that quality of the commons. Certain libertarians can talk about bottled water or canned air all they want. I doubt they would put their money where their mouth is if it ever came to it.