Keeping The Climate Change A-Changing

greenpower

Kimberley A. Strassel at the Wall Street Journal writes about the growing number of skeptics on “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.

And:

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.

I’ve always been very cautious in saying definitively that humanity is causing the lion’s share of climate change. The Earth is a dynamic system that is ever-changing and evolving. If you chart the Earth’s climate over the millions of years, peaks and valleys are the rule, not the exception. That is enough evidence for me to keep the door open on both sides of the debate and research. I don’t see this as a liberal/conservative issue. But a scientific issue that needs more research and continued debate. So when I see Speaker Nancy Pelosi working overtime to ram through the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade bill, my warning lights fired up.

The Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade bill basically forces companies and individuals to switch from using relatively cheap, abundant energy sources like oil, coal and natural gas to more expensive “alternative” sources. That’s my interpretation and it’s difficult for me to sway from that. Looking at the Great Recession that we are in, coupled with the growing skepticism of human based global warming, why push the Waxman-Markey bill through? I understand President Obama ran a campaign on fighting global warming. But the evidence that a large amount of jobs will be lost coupled with the not-realized “Green Jobs Explosion” as of yet, is just a recipe for on-going and worsening pain if the Waxman/Markey Bill has its way.

I’m a “journeyman” futurist and lover of science fiction. I dream of the day where we live in a futuristic society with ultra clean and green power. But when your in a bad situation, dreams won’t cut it. People need to keep working. People need to keep expenses low. People need stabilized finances. Steering individuals and companies into higher energy expense without realized benefits (as of yet) is just bad, bad politics and bad, bad economics.

         

Author: T-STEEL, Site Administrator

I'm not complex. Don't have time for all that. And all that complex stuff bad for the stomach. Just color me simple and plain with a twist.

Share This Post On

31 Comments

  1. So when I see Senator [sic] Nancy Pelosi working overtime to ram through the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade bill, my warning lights fired up.

    I know you mean Speaker Pelosi :)

    I'm with you there, T_Steele; you know things are bad if Greenpeace comes out against this bill. They claim the bill isn't science-based. I'll need to read more on it to better understand where they are coming from, but if what they say is true, this bill deserves to die. If the “science is settled”, as is heard so often in this debate, then they should have the greatest minds in the sciences helping draft this legislation.

  2. Yes, the extremism _and_ the rushing is what offends better people.

    The activists have formed a religion in which they profess unquestioned faith, and they have not only their demons, but they treat with Inquisition-like style anyone not sufficiently faithful enough (robotic enough), for to question or to hesitate or to be smarter, or to denounce their misconduct is to engage in heresy.

    They have their apocalpytic fiction to use as propaganda (simply a change from the “population explosion” nonsense we were treated to in earlier decades, anti-growth sentiment (Club of Rome), etc., with the same pathological fixation on the West rather than all the world, and with the same warped views and goals as before — anti-development, anti-progress, de-industrialization, now lunatic de-carbonization.

    The sillier idealism is nothing different than the 1960s, too, just brought more up-to-date (today's solar and wind energy and some biofuels and other alternatives, rather than the same but yesteryear's older forms of solar and wind energy and some biofuels and other alternatives).

    The need to rush, to feel urgency, to claim this is an emergency, is irresponsible alarmism and deception _at_best_. (So often it's much worse than that.)

    The goals are unrealistic and it is pathological (_diseased_) behavior to insist on harm and on deliberate self-deprivation and even self-destruction. (This is an example of the nihilism associated with the 1960s-onward radicalism of the Western Left.)

    They've routinely been pathological, logical and moral failures, and Orwellian in having the gall to claim the moral and other forms of high ground from below.

    The on-going silliness and silliness and disturbed-and-disturbing rushing (urgency) only makes them worse. These fools are not only able but likely and even already willing to deliberately engage in harm.

    [sigh]

    There is so much yet to be learned about climate and climate change and man's effect on the climate and potential and propensity to change it (the rate as well as by how much) and with next to nothing in hand, these fools want to use the USA as their stupid play-pen at potential (and likely) great cost to us all.

    It's the pathological nature of the “movement” and the frequent scumminess of its inherents' behavior that is most annoying, but what is probably more concerning is, yes, what they might actually try to do, now that we have Obama and a lot of dippy activists in Washington (many who preceded Obama) who actually want to harm the economy, retard progress, deliberately engage in nihilistic national self-deprivation. Sick!

  3. Thanks for the catch, jchem! Corrected.

  4. “They claim the bill isn't science-based.”

    They're right. The bill is ideological as well as political in nature.

    The new fuel efficiency regulations for motor vehicles recently passed were another example of this. Some states have begun to flirt wrongly with “alternative energy” minima for new generation, which is unrealistic and has people already worried about higher future electricity bills. (The blantant politics in place of science and sensibility are illustrated by typical mindless rejection of nuclear energy as an option along with the demon coal.)

    “Cap and trade” is just a more indirect and softer club to use than mandatory alternative energy requirements or the honest alternative to “cap and trade” if reduction in energy use is desired (which is not inherently correct or desireable, and often is another manifestation of left-activist pathology, with or without related global-warming idiocy), namely a tax on fuels. “Cap and trade” involves government and forms an opportunity as well for intermediaries (middlemen). Mark my words, that it would never be any kind of surprise eventually to find Obama, Gore, Browner, and other suspects having financial interests in whatever intermediaries emerge or evolve to facilitate the “cap and trade” scheme (scam).

  5. “If you chart the Earth’s climate over the millions of years, peaks and valleys are the rule, not the exception. “

    The climate in the past has been _warmer_ than today's climate, numerous times.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but there have been numerous climate warmings in the past dwarfing modern times that didn't involve a post-1850 man-made increase in greenhouse gases. CO2 increase by man should eventually raise the “baseline,” but this remains to happen and isn't necessarily a catastrophe.

    The warmer climates even during human times (Roman era, Little Optimum) were _superior_ to today's climate. Warmer is _better_, colder is _worse_ for life. Obviously! [sigh]

    The reasonable worst case (that in earlier times could have arisen from what still are respectable well as reasonable desires and attempts to improve climate, i.e., to _warm_ it, as described decades earlier) is an ice-free Arctic Ocean. This has happened before, and isn't anything apocalyptic to fear.

    That there are winners and losers if we warm (and if the Arctic ice vanishes), and that obviously to adapt to what changes _may_ (to use the correct word) happen is superior to self-destructive playpen-political harm to our economy and society and retardation of development and progress, makes the activists very upset. That reaction is what is most revealing (about the activists and the nature of them and the “movement”).

    “Global warming” (when the globe warms rather than stays the same temperature or, gasp, becomes cooler) is simply a political movement with strong, long-lasting adherence (“'acid rain' on steroids”) that has been adopted by the “population explosion” [sic] Malthusians as the next Great Excuse for Interventionism. (Same kinds of solutions for each of these problems, naturally.)

    It's bad enough to stampede along with, or to hop on a bandwagon with, silliness, but to embrace pathology and self-destructive behavior is inexcuseable.

  6. In fairness it looks like Greenpeace doesn't like it because it's not strong enough.

    There is a correct answer on how much man contributes to global warming, unfortunately we'll probably never know it because it's been turned into a political football. We need to get the politicians and demonstrators out of this issue in order to properly evaluate it, but that won't happen.

  7. Of course caution and healthy skepticism are required when assessing a phenomenon with the potential impact GW could have, and broad claims about “consensus”, and the inevitability of dire effects shouldn't be thrown around without certainty. That said, none of us are well-served when science is trumped by politics. From what I've seen, there are as many people who have chosen their stance on AGW because they dislike Al Gore as there are people who have bothered to follow the science. I doubt Kimberley Strassel's own position is as informed by science as it is by her ideology for that matter. Conversely, there are likely plenty of folks who subscribe to AGW theories because environmentalism in general is more associated with democrats than republicans. By all means, let's try to increase our knowledge about the phenomenon, not just try to buttress our positions, but if the dire predictions of effects and the window of opportunity for addressing the effects are right, then all the partisan heel-dragging that seems bizz as usual now, will result in exponentially more serious consequences for generations not far down the road. It's terribly unfortunate that science has become so politicized in a time when using it and understanding it is so critical.

  8. I'm not sure I can agree that Pelosi et al are “rushing” the climate change bill. Concern about global warming has been building for decades – remember that as far back as 1993, Al Gore tried get a “BTU tax” included in the budget bill to raise the price of carbon and spur the development of alternative technologies. Since then, there have been god knows how many scientific papers on global warming and many, many white papers describing and debating possible carbon tax and cap-and-trade schemes. And if there are doubts, the clear majority still believe (1) that warming is man-made; (2) that it will carry very serious costs to coastal cities, to agriculture, and to health; (3) that we must start reducing emissions as soon as possible.

    With all that as background, the very loose version of cap-and-trade that's coming out of the House looks very, very slow indeed – the biggest risk to its passage was that liberal democrats would abandon it as too little to do any good. And now, the Senate will have a chance to pick over it in customary leisurely fashion, with the interests of rural and energy-producing states weighted much more heavily than the coasts or, say, people.

  9. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has been known for over a century. It's not the only one but we do pump trillions of tons of it into the atmosphere every year. It's concentration in the atmosphere has increase 35% since the beginning of the industrial revolution. So how can it not have had an effect? Somehow I never hear the denialists explain that one. I also haven't heard of one of their alternative theories that hasn't been debunked.

  10. Jim_Satterfield said: “I don't believe you fell for an article that includes Inhofe's list of scientists in it.”

    I didn't “fall” for this article. I agreed with some of Kimberley Strassel's point (and yes I know the political leanings of Strassel). My overall point is aligned with JSpencer's statement:

    “It's terribly unfortunate that science has become so politicized in a time when using it and understanding it is more critical than ever.”

    And I feel that the Waxman-Markey bill is too politicized to do much good. And I'm ULTRA concerned about jobs. We can't keep losing them without having replacement. The Waxman-Markey bill will cause job loss in certain industries. What will we do with those people (along with all the other folks out there that have been laid off)?

  11. Leaving aside the whole debate about global warming, let me address the comment about “cheap abundant oil”.

    Our purchase of oil is, really, and no ideologically driven debate about it, as TB Pickens puts it “the greatest transfer of wealth in human history” from the West to frankly unfriendly regimes in the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela, etc.

    Our oil dollars brought down the WTC, as we fund the very hostile fanatics we fight with our blood and treasure.

    If you think of all the oil North America has ever had as a six-pack, we have consumed 4 and opened the fifth. Should we not at least wait til our kids are drinking age to open the sixth can? We will need the remaining oil for plastics and all other petroleum based products, and that sixth can? It's gonna cost us. It's heavy oil, oil sands, oil shale and other extremely expensive, power intensive and water intensive to get and expensive to refine (compared to “light sweet” crude).

    Oil hit $4 a gallon again in CA. With China and India grabbing more and more (now buying up the Canadian sources, for instance), the days of “cheap and abundant” are OVER. If we don't make it a crisis priority to free ourselves from dependence on oil, we're worse than stupid. Every single thing we buy will cost more as gas and diesel prices head skyward past $5 a gallon.

    Now, there's a good chance that reports like this one will convince us to slow our efforts, scuttling our only chance to lead in the green economy of the 21st Century. So instead of being in both the driver's seat and at the cash register, innovation will come from Japan, and China will manufacture it. India will do the tech work, and we'll do… wait. what WILL we do?

    A CA Republican friend suggested that we'll be the “bread basket of the world.” So, back to an agrarian society? What about the cost in labor? He suggests (which I could not believe I was hearing) that we need to find a way to keep the cheap immigrant labor.

    Oh did I mention global warming? No. I didn't.

  12. Jim_Satterfield said: “The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has been known for over a century. It's not the only one but we do pump trillions of tons of it into the atmosphere every year. It's concentration in the atmosphere has increased 35% since the beginning of the industrial revolution. So how can it not have had an effect?”

    It may be having an effect. But how does the Waxman-Markey bill REALLY help in that arena? That's the question.

  13. Jim S. Good catch on the shockingly low quality of “expert witnesses” put forward by Inhofe.

  14. GreenDreams said: “Now, there's a good chance that reports like this one will convince us to slow our efforts, scuttling our only chance to lead in the green economy of the 21st Century. So instead of being in both the driver's seat and at the cash register, innovation will come from Japan, and China will manufacture it. India will do the tech work, and we'll do… wait. what WILL we do?”

    I want us to lead the green economy for the 21st century and BEYOND! As I said, I dream about this (actually I think about it too much). But I'm super-concerned that the politics of this recent bill just won't help. There has to be a better way to head towards “green futures” without the mud-slinging political nonsense. I'm going to think of ways and post about it….. one day. My head hurts just thinking about it.

  15. Wow. A huge collection of people discussing an important scientific issue with a grand total of zero experts among them. Surely this is a recipe for success.

  16. Hey, we're just talking about the weather here. ;-) Seriously, you should realize that many opinions here are informed by access to information which comes from… (wait for it) . . . . . . . . . . . . experts!

    Welcome to the 21st century Ryan!

  17. Wow. A huge collection of people discussing an important scientific issue with a grand total of zero experts among them. Surely this is a recipe for success.

    Are you talking about us, the House and Senate, or all of the above?

  18. Waxman-Markey is, in essence, the Enron-ization of CO2. No real value add, just a numbers game pretending to be commodities trading that will make some people very rich, cost a lot of people a lot of money, make a few people smug they are helping Gaia, and in the end be exposed as just another shell game, but this time government sanctioned.

  19. js: Quoting someone else is not the same as understanding it yourself, nor is clinging to someone with letters after their name because the alternative happens to be inconvenient for you.

    dagoat: All of the above and then some.

  20. “In fairness it looks like Greenpeace doesn't like it because it's not strong enough.”

    Yep. (Not extreme enough.)

    “There is a correct answer on how much man contributes to global warming, unfortunately we'll probably never know it because it's been turned into a political football.”

    That is the real problem here. And sadly, we'll see research neglected or abused due to politics (neglected to the extent that Washington instead chooses to epend money and time on harmful interventionism instead; abused because of additional politics affecting and infecting the subject and the related research, choice of topics to investigate, and so on.)

    Climate, climatic variation, and climate change (both natural and artificial) are fascinating, beautiful subjects of study as well as useful now and in the future (I've enjoyed learning about them since I was a child, got my Edmund Scientific equipment when I was a child, etc.) which have been misappropriated (seized, once the “movement” established itself) and misused, corrupted, and ruined by the Left.

    There is _so_ much out there to be studied that we cannot rely on academia to study necessarily and that, worse, we cannot rely on government to refrain from interfering and activists from infesting. [sigh]

    * * *
    “the green economy of the 21st Century”

    This has been the object of _so_ much hype and starry-eyed stuff. [sigh]

    Wind and solar remain intermittent and far from 100% substitutes for conventional energy sources, no matter how much progress we make in the next several years. (R&D on that should be what our fine friends in Washington should be doing rather than playing totalitarians-lite games with us instead!)

    If “greenhouse gases” or a concern with (real) pollution is still there, where is the progress on nuclear power (along with coal and gas, serious base-load energy sources)? Why don't we get rid of silly or stupid political opposition to reprocessing and use breeder reactors, incidentally, as well as ordinary reactors?

    It'll be years before we get good electric vehicles. (Vehicle and especially battery R&D is something the feds should be doing, not limited to GM's battery center in Warren, MI.) And what about all the new generation we'll need, as well as the charging equipment and connection apparatus? (More federal R&D)

    “I think a true emissions tax would be a more honest way to disincentivize bad carbon behavior. Sadly, we have so demonized the very concept of taxation that it's a nonstarter. “

    You're incorrect and hyperbolic about how normal people view taxation (it is a necessary evil; it is often, even routinely abused, and people rightly object to this) but you're right on that the emissions tax would be the ideal way to reduce energy use and emissions (“carbon behavior” is not inherently “bad”). I fear an emissions tax (a _real_emissions_ tax, with _real_ pollutants, toxins, not “greenhouse gas” or carbon-content gimmickry) will be levied eventually _in_addition_to_ a cap and trade scheme.

    “A CA Republican friend suggested that we'll be the 'bread basket of the world.' So, back to an agrarian society?”

    Tsk, tsk. Green Dreams, were you trying to be humorous as well as illogical? It's obvious that there will be winners and losers in a warmer climate, including under the real-world-”worst”[sic]-case stable scenario of no more Arctic ice pack. The summer temperatures would be elevated somewhat, along with an earlier last spring frost date and later first autumn frost date, with more heat “area under the curve” (growing degree-days, not only cooling degree-days) during the (longer) growing season. The climatic zones would be generally shifted northward, so higher latitudes would not have as retarded agricultural and economic development as they have now relative to areas farther south.

    It's no surprise that in earlier times experts in the USA and the USSR (notably Budyko) studied what would happen if the Arctic ice pack were dusted with coal dust or something else to increase its melting and make the northern lands useful rather than useless or greatly retarded or inhibited in development. The northern parts of North America and Eurasia would stand to gain the most. “Loser” areas would include the dry Southwest (made more dry — and look at the existing climate zones _and_ the terrain to ascertain or anticipate what changes would happen there, where. California's snowpack would suffer to a great degree — oops — and there would be increased desertification in California and elsewhere in the arid Southwest, while Cascadia and upward toward the Alaska bight would be much better off.)

    (Coastal Central and Southern California are Mediterranean. Baja California's coast is desert. Would the coastal desert extend all the way to Point Conception with an ice-free Arctic? How much north of this place would change from existing grass and oaks to chaparral, or from conifers north of the Golden Gate to grass and oaks, or to chaparral? The extent of change would be accompanied by precip and snowpack reduction. Not just reduced precip, but remainder more in the form of rain than of snow, and hence not stored for use during drought months in “summer.”)

    Assuming we'll eventually warm (not definitive yet, but likely — even with China's and India's aerosols the CO2 should have a greater effect), I'd like to see studies of creeping climatic zones (typified more by vegetation than by animals, which may already be moving northward), extents and _probabilities_ found, and a corresponding set of studies about the effects of all kinds (including economic, which is so very important) of various changes to the climate and related effects, to better learn what the effects are in the losing as well as in the winning parts of this country (which is more important to us than the rest of the world and deserves more attention), free of political activism and political taint, catastrophism, and all the rest.

    (As opposed to Waxman [gag] — all that federal R&D and related production means more good jobs.)

    * * *

    “And I feel that the Waxman-Markey bill is too politicized to do much good.”

    In fact, the intelligent question that it raises is if it will do any (real) good at all, whereas it obviously threatens economic and other harm, and is associated with pathological thinking and behavior in addition to politics. (At least it isn't as bad as others such as Greenpeace would ridiculously demand instead.)

    That's aside from the intelligent concerns about the bill's realism and cost-effectiveness.

    * * *

    “The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has been known for over a century.”

    (since 1859 if you want to credit Tyndall, who predates Arrhenius)

    “So how can it not have had an effect?”

    How much of an effect, how much later (with more CO2), once the atmosphere is affected, what will be the result on Earth or in the biosphere (the basic consequences of no Arctic Ocean ice pack have long been known, from past climates that had no ice pack — the past is a guide and has been researched for decades), are all things that merit additional study.

    The effects have never justified alarmism or similar attitudes or behavior, nor any excessive or wrongful interventionism.

  21. “There has to be a better way to head towards 'green futures' without the mud-slinging political nonsense.”

    “Green,” or you may mean “clean,” which is certainly very desireable. I even wouldn't mind some reasonable regs on tire noise (often worse than engine noise on roads) and other sources of noise pollution.

    Unfortunately, the environment and the economy are both sources of harmful, destructive politics (aimed primarily at the economy and at society).

    There's so much for research and even government R&D and production if that's what people want.

  22. Ryan, what's the point of telling us that we aren't experts and thus, shouldn't talk about it? This is a group blog with comments the last time I checked. I wrote an opinion and people are commenting about it. I take lumps, give some, we banter, postulate, etc. American freedom in a virtual world! We don't have to necessarily be experts, but those elected to make the decisions do. So target them. Not us regular folks for speaking/writing.

  23. Even the experts don't agree. Plus, so often what is “expertise” is thinly disguised or undisguised lefty politics.

    As to the “cap and trade” scam, Austin Roth describes it very well. I wonder to what extent this was chosen in lieu of some kind of energy tax out of cowardice, and to what extent out of a desire to enjoy manipulating the economy and people. (Plus I have said, don't be surprised if Obama, Gore, and the rest are benefiting financially from the middleman or facilitator or intermediary role eventually.)

  24. AR, I think I'm with you. I've soured on cap and trade, as, more specifically the Golman-ization of CO2. I still think CO2 is a pollutant (as SCOTUS agreed recently) and needs to be controlled, but the “carbon market” is increasingly scary to me. Anyone who wants to learn way more about Goldman, the “bubble machine”, and their designs on creating and profiting from the next bubble, take a look at this painfully long article by Matt Taibi.

    http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/goldman-s

    Here's the, er, money quote from the article:

    Having seamlessly navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni occupying key government jobs.

    And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is carbon credits – a booming trillion-dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a ground-breaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an “environmental plan,” called cap-and-trade.

    The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

  25. Not to mention that the Earth itself can spew poisonous toxins all by herself (volcanos, anyone?). I don't doubt man made emissions have an effect, but I would cheer for the money being poured into R&D rather than industry slapping measures, because the net benefit to the earth is virtually nil if only we do it.

    Instead, why not pour millions into fusion research, geothermal research, solar cell research, updating the power grid, changing farm subsidies (which have a large environmental impact), etc etc. The Goblinization of Industry is a wrong headed approach, especially since the Government enabled many of those industries in the first place.

    But yeah, get us off of Oil. That's just common sense.

  26. “It may be having an effect. But how does the Waxman-Markey bill REALLY help in that arena? That's the question.”

    I'm not that thrilled with this bill or much else when it comes to the politics, but the kind of denier stuff that Inhofe represents is one of the reasons we can't get anything meaningful done. But the WSJ editorial you cited brought Inhofe into it and that sort of blows the credibility of the entire thing. The question is can we get anything accomplished so long as there are people who keep putting forth BS excuses for science. My comments are made because of the first paragraph you wrote, not the parts about jobs or the political environment. Do you really think that climatologists don't know everything you wrote? That they look at the natural causative agents and do their utter best to account for them? The same applies to Lit3Bolt's comment about natural sources.

  27. TS: I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss it, I'm saying that it's going to involve lots of people with strong opinions about things they don't understand, so the quality of the discussion will be appropriately low. Most people aren't very big on science to begin with, even on settled issues. ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-repub… )

  28. “AR, I think I'm with you. I've soured on cap and trade, as, more specifically the Golman-ization of CO2.”

    Cap and trade is a scam, is as I described before (I used someone else's beautiful analogy: rather than tax cigarettes to reduce smoking, the government is awarding Soviet-style production quotas and permits instead), and is an excuse for the little green fascists to do what? Meddle — to “play market” and to manipulate it. Those who are intermediaries (middlemen) can get rich off this, and as I had said earlier, it would not be surprised if Obama, Gore, Browner, and the like had financial interests that benefited from this scheme. And to address the line of attack specifically that Green Dreams hinted at, what about Tim Geithner and his fellow bank-bailout-and-managed-industry-consolidation buddies at “Treasury/Wall Street”?

  29. ” But the WSJ editorial you cited brought Inhofe into it and that sort of blows the credibility of the entire thing.”

    It may raise the hackles of some, and doesn't necessarily merit cheap-shot, misdirected accusations of _ad_hominem_ in response, but (and more importantly), Inhofe is far from the other-side case we've seen with this subject from the likes of Union of Concerned Scientists and that crowd, which is much worse.

    * * *

    “Instead, why not pour millions into fusion research, geothermal research, solar cell research, updating the power grid, changing farm subsidies (which have a large environmental impact), etc etc.”

    That's where so much of this attention belongs. Not in pathological, perverse, self-destructive behavior by government (demanded by activists) that is unmerited as well as destructive. And no, “compassion” in the form of including in the bill some assistance specifically intended for those losing their jobs due to the effects of the bill is not an excuse for seeking those effects and seeking to pass this bill.

    The left activists dislike the bill because it's not destructive enough. Best is no such bill whatsoever, ever.

    I'm concerned that the more loony Dems (pushed by the activists) will view this as incrementalist and will seek more destructive behavior in the future.

    This climate bill has passed barely, after more scummy behavior by the Dems (3:09 AM prior to the vote, releasing another 300 pages) and deserves widespread gutting by the Senate. If Obama vetoes it because he is dissatisfied (or because he has listened to the highly-opposed mainstream), and the veto is not overridden, good. Both this climate bill and the health care bill have been massive piles of garbage.

Submit a Comment