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.

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”?

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.

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.

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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H….

Several links here:

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/...

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.)

“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.

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.

dagoat: All of the above and then some.

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

Welcome to the 21st century Ryan!

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.

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