Democrats & Liberals Archives

One-Two Punch Against Global Warming

Now that the 100-hour program was accomplished in 42 hours, Pelosi is set to use the last item on the agenda, ending tax breaks for oil companies, as a springboard for a complete legislative package that will lead to renewable energy sources. Ending tax breaks for oil companies is a punch against the forces feeding global warming. Achieving renewable energy resources is a punch for producing livable air conditions, while at the same time becoming independent of energy resources from hostile nations.

Here is what the House did on Thursday:

The House rolled back billions of dollars in oil industry subsidies Thursday in what supporters hailed as a new direction in energy policy toward more renewable fuels. Critics said the action would reduce domestic oil production and increase reliance on imports. ... Democrats said the legislation could produce as much as $15 billion in revenue. Most of that money would pay to promote renewable fuels such as solar and wind power, alternative fuels including ethanol and biodiesel and incentives for conservation.

Terrific! Rep. Dennis Hastert, the previous House speaker, does not think so. In the same article, he states:

We do not need a tax on domestic energy production and development. Increasing taxes on our nation's energy industry means one thing — more reliance on foreign oil and gasoline.

Hastert calls getting rid of oil subsidies a tax increase. Poor oil companies. Look at how Exxon, the biggest of them, is suffering:

Net income up 75% to $9.92 billion. That is the most a U.S. company has earned from operations in a three-month period and greater than the annual gross domestic product of entire nations including Cameroon and Zimbabwe.

But the real punch against global warming came yesterday, when Pelosi decided to form a new panel to tackle this most important task:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought to create a special committee Thursday in an effort to jump-start long-delayed government efforts to deal with global warming and produce a bill by Independence Day.

Actual bill-drafting duties will be left to committees that have a say in the matter. That could be several because global climate change could affect virtually everything.

Sure, Pelosi will have to deal with turf-war problems. But I am confident she can get all committee chairmen to cooperate.

Such a panel would not be necessary if the executive branch were doing its job. But the administration is only making matters worse. Last year, in his State of the Union speech, Bush told us we are addicted to oil. What did he do about it? Nothing. No, worse than nothing - he gave oil companies tax breaks. Now the rumor is that Bush is going to talk about global warming in this year's State of the Union address. Maybe he will. But we do not need talk. We need action.

Pelosi and the Democrats are leading with a one-two punch against global warming.

Posted by Paul Siegel at January 19, 2007 5:43 PM
Comments
Comment #204050

Paul

I think Pelosi is doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

Price is the most imporant factor in conservation. The high prices of oil this year caused a drop consumption in ALL OECD areas for the first time. I worry about dropping prices for oil. They have come down a lot. The Dem energy policy will ensure higher energy prices. This is good, but not the intent.

BTW - that Royalty break was Clinton era.

Posted by: Jack at January 19, 2007 6:44 PM
Comment #204054

I have read all the blogs on your website and it is apparent that some of those who write have never stepped into a military uniform nor have they participated in a war. They seem to have listened to the liberal news media and have not checked to see if what they write is true.
The liberal Democrat politicians are like someone once said, if you tell a lie long enough and often enough people will begin to believe it.
All the left seems to have are those lies, and it is a shame they cannot come up with anything positive to help this country, and the people they are supposed to represent.

Posted by: paul barnes at January 19, 2007 7:09 PM
Comment #204057

Paul B.
I guess that’s true for both parties. But more so for the left. Sure I think there is some Global Warming but not to the extent the left is saying. When I was in school we were taught that the earth may be shifting on it’s axis thus Florida may have weather like the northern states and the northern states have Florida weather. BUT THIS IS ONLY A THEORY.

Posted by: KAP at January 19, 2007 7:26 PM
Comment #204060

KAP,
There is no theory suggesting axial tilt will affect climate in our lifetime. You may be thinking of Milankovich cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Paul,
I am liberal, I served in the military, and you can feel free to challenge anything I say on this blog for links/sources. If you do not accept statements by liberals, then step up to bat! But you will need to do better than make vague pronouncements about “lies.” The topic is Global Warming. Go for it.

Posted by: phx8 at January 19, 2007 7:46 PM
Comment #204062

Paul B,
1) Thanks for your service (if you’ve served). You seem to imply that you have done so, so thank you.

2) I’m not sure exactly what relevance your comments have with regard to the content of Paul’s article; perhaps you could clarify?

3) I’m never fond of the psychological tactic of using one’s military service as a platform that assumes one is the absolute final authority on what is or is not fact when it comes to war (the present one in particular). Really, such an approach is full of faulty logic.

4) Your fellow soldiers may hold different political views. You’ve earned the right to tout yours as a free citizen of the USA. Don’t assume you speak for every service member, as that would also be faulty logic.

Posted by: Dr D at January 19, 2007 7:52 PM
Comment #204067

But isn’t Hastert’s point exactly correct?

The oil market is global, but this only effects American companies. Increase their costs, and more oil is going to come from foreign sources. This is painfully obvious.

This does nothing to reduce consumption. Pelosi is just “outsourcing” more of our energy production to foreign companies. I thought Democrats were against outsourcing?

Those who benefit from this most are those like the Russians, the Saudis, and the Venezualans who produce oil and are not subject to Pelosi’s schemes.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 19, 2007 8:34 PM
Comment #204068

It will take a LOT more than that to affect global warming, but I’m all for ending any corporate welfare.

Now, how about using those retained taxes to research and implement some alternative energy sources?

Jack, I know you believe in keep prices high, but the means don’t always justify the ends.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 19, 2007 8:41 PM
Comment #204071

The “man caused global warming” politically correct religion has not yet forced everyone to bow down and worship it.

ABC meteorologist has declared he thinks it’s bunk and all the weathermen he knows also think it’s bunk. But jobs are lost and money are lost if you don’t repeat the “politically correct” religion of “man caused the glacers to melt”. LAUGH.

It’s bunk. Most of us know it’s bunk. The environment has been hijacked by the radical left to promote their political agenda.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf

Posted by: Stephen at January 19, 2007 8:57 PM
Comment #204075

Loyal Opposition,

Most democratic party victories do result in giving our economic and political enemies some sort of an advantage or victory over the US. It’s part and parcel of the left wings religion.

Outsourcing our nations oil and gas production…oh boy, we beat those “evil” oil companies. what’s next? Beat the “evil” car companies? The “evil” retail outlets? The “evil” grocery stores? The “evil” hospitals? yeah, lets tear it all down because the left wing hates American business.

Posted by: Stephen at January 19, 2007 9:03 PM
Comment #204077

Thanks Paul

I hope the new comm.calls on oil company excutives and ask them ,under oath, about there PR campaign to discredit the scientific consenses on global warming much like the tobacco industry .
I also hope they are able to address problems with the alcohol program like the use of natural gas to produce it. Gee,what else is there to use? Alcohol maybe. An increase in bio-mass conversion reasearch should result very soon into the ability to use the entire corn stalk. returning the left overs as fertilizer.
We can expect Bush to give lip service to alternatives and maybe even propose a program he has no intention of funding. He will also push nuclear power. His hydogen proposal actually requires by law that hydrogen be produced from petrolieum instead of ,say, water.

Posted by: BillS at January 19, 2007 9:21 PM
Comment #204078

So let me get this straight…

Less subsidies lead to higher fuel prices; higher fuel prices lead to increased interest in renewable energy.

Sounds good to me but…
It’s funny how nobody likes the idea of raising fuel prices when Jack proposes it over on the Red Side. That’s partisanship for you.

Posted by: TheTraveler at January 19, 2007 9:22 PM
Comment #204082

Travellor
Not true. I posted there on the subject and although I pointed out some problems with it I did agree it has some merit.Did you really expect much support for a tax increase on the red side?Frankly I think Jack has taken a pretty brave stance on the issue.Not to often you hear support for a tax increase from a free market Rep. He also recognizes the importance of dealing with climate change. That is why he is my favorite arch nemises.

Posted by: BillS at January 19, 2007 9:53 PM
Comment #204085

It’s a giant myth that there is somehow “insufficient interest” in renewable or alternative fuel sources and that’s the reason we rely so heavily on fossil fuels.

There is enormous interest in it, and there are a huge number of very well-funded scientists working on it not just in the US but worldwide. This is a very real technological problem, and there’s giant hubris involved in Congress thinking that THEY can just wish into being a technological solution by making things harder on domestic energy companies.

We actually have a very clean and potentially very safe alternative staring us in the face—nuclear power. It has some risks, but so does any form of energy, and we’ve come a long way tecnhologically since the days of Three Mile Island.

An accident, incidentally, which has totally destroyed nuclear power as an option for large segments of the public. An accident in which not one person was hurt or killed and to which not a single death as a result of radiation has been attributed.

FACT: More people in the United States have been killed by windmills than nuclear reactors.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 19, 2007 9:59 PM
Comment #204088

Maybe this special committee will jump on the opportunity to bring back nuclear power plants to the US so we can improve the environment. Current power plant models are doing more to harm our environment than efficient nuclear power.

Posted by: Honest at January 19, 2007 10:24 PM
Comment #204091

d.a.n.

The Dems are going to take this step no matter what. They claim - and maybe even believe- that they will lower prices. Of course it will not work like that. I am only finding the silver lining.

When all hell breaks loose, roast marshmallows on the flames, cuz there is nothing else you can do.

Posted by: Jack at January 19, 2007 10:33 PM
Comment #204092

Honest and L.O.

I’ll leave it others to list the problems with nuclear power but I must tell you that until congress,in a bipartisan vote,manages to repeal Murphy’s law they are just to damned dangerious.

Posted by: BillS at January 19, 2007 10:35 PM
Comment #204093

Good on Speaker Pelosi! I’m all for ending our dependence on foreign oil, and for what’s safest and cleanest: Renewables like solar, wind, ocean power and biodiesels, rather than obvious Poisoners like nuclear.
Or should I say nukular? :^/

Posted by: Adrienne at January 19, 2007 10:38 PM
Comment #204096

People, wishful thinking is not an energy source.

If it was, we’d have no problems. Every single alternative has its problems and risks, and none of them are immune from Murhpy’s law.

Windmills kills enormous numbers of birds, some which are endangered, and we’ve have to cover the world with billions upon billions of unsightly windmill contraptions to even make a dent in our energy needs.

Solar power? Manufacturing those damn solar panels requires extracting tons of resources from the environment, and the surface area of the globe we’d have to cover up with them, destroying habitats, degrading the landscape, to make a dent in our energy needs would be enormous.

Geothermal energy? Requires huge numbers of energy plants in environmentally sensitve areas. Requires the kind of intrusion (i.e,. drilling) which is a drawback of oil extraction.

Harness the tides? Yeah, right. Turbines up and down the coast, destroying sensitive marine habitats.

Biodiesals? You like monocultures which destroy biodiversity, which require massive use of pesticides and erode the topsoil?

The biggest problem with nuclear energy is what to do with the waste, and recent improvements in technology make it possible to reprocess that waste, extracting more energy from it, and rendering it nearly harmless (or at least harmful for FAR less time). That’s where we ought to be putting our resources: into potentially clean, safe, and infinite nuclear power.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 19, 2007 11:04 PM
Comment #204124

Snow in Malibu. Overnight lows of 25 degrees in SoCal. 75% of California produce freezed out. Higher prices for salads. It is time to panic. Global warming is causing chaos in the west coast!
How vane, ego-centric, does one have to be to think one can affect global climate change.
GW is not a proven fact. There is consensus among some scientists, but that does not make it true. There has to be provable data. Gravity will not fail to work because of lack of a consensus. The Law of Gravity has been proven.
Scientists and universities have to come up with problems so that they can continue to receive funds. The biggest cause of GW is the sun and we cannot extinguish it. So, step off Narcissus, the world revolves around the sun, not you.

Posted by: JoeRWC at January 20, 2007 6:55 AM
Comment #204138

Paul,

This was indeed a huge accomplishment. Go Nancy, go!

I read this article the other day:

Companies press Bush, Congress on climate
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/climate_coalition_dc

“Ten major U.S. corporations are joining environmental groups to press
President George W. Bush and Congress to address climate change more rapidly.”

To those who think global warming is entirely a myth; can you name one reason why reducing dependence on petro-fuels is a bad thing?

Posted by: KansasDem at January 20, 2007 10:53 AM
Comment #204146

Kansasdem
Our dependence on petro fuels isn’t the greatest thing in the world but it’s the cheapest thing we have. If both parties would get off their pompus asses and agree on certain issues maybe they can come up with some alternatives. As far as global warming is concerned I personnally don’t think it’s as big of an issue as is made out.

Posted by: KAP at January 20, 2007 12:04 PM
Comment #204147

KansasDem,
There are a lot of good reasons to reduce our dependence on petroleum. The global warming hoax just isn’t one of them.
It is a fact that our economy is dependent on oil for the foreseeable future. As long as it is we should be making every effort to use our own oil rather than depending on hostile regimes to supply it. Pelosi’s scheme will only increase that dependence.
As techology evolves there will come a time when petroleum will no longer be used as an energy source. I hope it happens in my lifetime; I’m curious to see what its replacement will be. Doing something stupid to solve a non existant problem will only lower our standard of living and make us more vulnerable to those who wish to destroy us.

Posted by: traveller at January 20, 2007 12:09 PM
Comment #204157

Traveller & JoeRWC,
Up to 15% of Americans believe the Apollo moon landings were a hoax. Do you believe men walked on the moon?

Posted by: phx8 at January 20, 2007 1:36 PM
Comment #204169
Jack wrote: d.a.n. When all hell breaks loose, roast marshmallows on the flames, cuz there is nothing else you can do.

Our energy vulnerabilities are real.
This nation hasn’t just ignored alternative energy.
It’s almost as if it has been brainwashed to avoid it.
I’m not sure it is merely an addicition to oil.

Yes, an energy crisis could trigger an economic downturn.
Have you see this ?
Watch it if you have time (about 20 minutes), it’s interesting. Alan Alda narrates.
It looks very promising (Hydrogen Hopes).
I’d like to get some of those solar voltaic shingles. You can poke holes in them and they keep on working.
Ovonics also has a web-site at uni-solar.com

Posted by: d.a.n at January 20, 2007 4:54 PM
Comment #204174

I really only have one comment. To all the posters who don’t believe in Gobal Warming or don’t believe it is as bad as some of the rest of us think it is What if you are wrong.

Posted by: Carolina Brown at January 20, 2007 5:12 PM
Comment #204183

Carolina Brown
What if your wrong and all this is a hoax? This world has been here a long time and all of a sudden in the last few decades we have global warming.

Posted by: KAP at January 20, 2007 5:58 PM
Comment #204189


If we do nothing about global warming and it is a hoax, no big deal.

If we do nothing about global warming and it is not a hoax, the consequences could be dire and even deadly for many.

Posted by: jlw at January 20, 2007 6:39 PM
Comment #204190

Carolina Brown,

Your question is important.

A smart person will try to find out more about it, before foolishly dismissing it as a myth.
Only a fool can dismiss it as a myth, since no one yet has sufficient knowledge and data to prove definitively one way or another.
The wise person will erron on the side of caution, and try to learn more about it, and research viable and cleaner energy alternatives.

Personally, in my opinion, I do think human activity is impacting the environment in many ways, including global warming.

There are many other good reasons for pursuing alternative energy sources

Posted by: d.a.n at January 20, 2007 6:41 PM
Comment #204191

“Our dependence on petro fuels isn’t the greatest thing in the world but it’s the cheapest thing we have.”

KAP,

I doubt we’ll feel that way when we start bombing Iran. If Brazil can achieve energy independence we can! If one laundromat can provide all of it’s hot water through solar energy most of rural America can.

We’re caught up in the status quo. In many cases the technology exists but we’re scared of change.

BTW, oil is not cheap. Over 3,000 Americans have died in the past 4 years to pay for our gas and oil.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 20, 2007 6:56 PM
Comment #204192

The scientific concensus on Global Warming is overwhelming.

The idea that scientists are making big bucks from research on Global Warming is ludicrous. Yes, we have all seen them driving around in their Porsches, lighting Cuban Cigars with hundred dollar bills, and and sneering as they have us bumped from our favorite tables in restaurants; however, the kind of research involved is far from glamorous, and these are people who simply do not make that much money. Doing research on Global Warming means spending time in Antartica and on Baffin Island and on the oceans, drilling ice & sediment cores, and poring over data on an incredibly diverse array of topics.

But in the end, it all comes down to facts and figures.

And now, we are in the midst of performing the greatest uncontrolled experiment in the history of humanity: what happens if we throw gigaton after gigaton of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, year after year after year?

Posted by: phx8 at January 20, 2007 6:57 PM
Comment #204193

Kansasdem
I hope you read the rest of what I posted

Posted by: KAP at January 20, 2007 6:59 PM
Comment #204196

KAP
Even if you discount global warming the fact remains that we will run out of oil sooner or later. What is wrong with being prepared? What is wrong with useing it frugally to make it last longer? Just common sense.

Posted by: BillS at January 20, 2007 7:12 PM
Comment #204199

Ever watched the movie: Dune ?
Everyone fighting over one thing (spice)?
That’s sort of what we have now, and getting worse, and could get much, much worse.

Wars will be waged for it.

Wars have been waged over it.

Our own vulnerabilities can not be overstated.
Our massive debt doesn’t help, which represent many lost opportunities.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 20, 2007 7:15 PM
Comment #204200

BillS
Like I said in a previous post BOTH PARTIES NEED TO GET OFF THEIR POMPOUS ASSES AND GET TOGETHER AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. AND THATS JUST COMMON SENSE.

Posted by: KAP at January 20, 2007 7:17 PM
Comment #204204

“What if you are wrong.”

Carolina Brown,

While the intent of your question points only to one side of the equation I’ll answer for both:

If we reduce emissions and find out there was no reason to do so we lose nothing. At the worst we waste some money. Boy, that’d be a first, eh? And, of course, we may even reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

OTOH, if we fail to reduce emissions and global warming estimates prove to be true we’ll witness more and more events of polar bears floating away on sheets of ice. Ahhh, who gives a crap about a polar bear? But shore lines will begin to move inward, slowly at first, but we’ll continue losing land mass.

Let’s err on the side of caution if error comes into play. The worst outcome is reducing our dependence on foreign oil. If I’m wrong about global warming I left more oil for future idiots to burn.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 20, 2007 7:24 PM
Comment #204207

“I hope you read the rest of what I posted
Posted by: KAP at January 20, 2007 06:59 PM”

Yes, I did:

“If both parties would get off their pompus asses and agree on certain issues maybe they can come up with some alternatives. As far as global warming is concerned I personnally don’t think it’s as big of an issue as is made out.
Posted by: KAP at January 20, 2007 12:04 PM”

Democrats as far back as Carter have tried to enact true conservation measures. Americans want to drive, and they want to live in larger homes than they need. We are an inefficient nation. The poor and even the “working poor” suffer but we don’t care as long as we have what we want.

That’s why our armed forces our undermanned and being required to pull too many tours of duty. We suck.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 20, 2007 7:41 PM
Comment #204212

KAP,

“This world has been here a long time and all of a sudden in the last few decades we have global warming.”

The “industrial” manufacturing of materials didn’t really begin until James Watt’s improvements to the steam engine less than 300 years ago.
The “Industrial Revolution” started in England in the 1780’s.
The development of the Bessemer Converter in 1855 made the modern steel industry a reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_converter

Were you aware that it was a “killer fog” in London caused by an inversion of fog and coal smoke that was the true start of the environmental movement in 1952?
Up to 8,000 people died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_fog

The American oil industry started around 1880.

The population of the colonies that became America was only a few million at the time of the Revolution. There are now 300 million people in America.

The automobile and the airplane are barely 100 years old.

Mankind, in the last 250 years has had a huge impact on this planet. More so than all the millennia before that.

Can you deny these facts?

I would venture to guess that the pollution we now pump into the atmosphere in less than a decade, is greater than all the pollution man created in all the years before the Industrial Revolution combined.

Do you truly believe that wouldn’t have an impact on this planet?

Posted by: Rocky at January 20, 2007 8:34 PM
Comment #204214

Kansasdem
I agree with you. We do want to drive have bigger homes our armed forces are undermanned. Everyone wants a big suv or pickup truck that gets about 2 miles per gallon or a house like the presidents when only 2 people live there and they’re the ones who cry the loudest. Enough people start pressuring their Reps and Sen. maybe then they will get off their pompus asses and do something. Me, I don’t live in a big house and I drive a late model economical auto. I think though people should look at themselves and ask do I need this big vehicle or this big house.

Posted by: KAP at January 20, 2007 8:40 PM
Comment #204306

phx8,
“Up to 15% of Americans believe the Apollo moon landings were a hoax. Do you believe men walked on the moon?”

What has one to do with the other?
The moon landings are well documented events.
Global Warming is speculation at best.
In the scientific literature all references to global warming include words and phrases like “may”, “could”, “possibly”, “might be”, “it is believed”.
To buy in to the global warming religion you have to suspend reason and accept that gasses comprising less than 1% of the atmosphere will cause us to broil in our own juices while ignoring all the factors that control weather and climate, most of which we don’t even understand.
You also have to ignore the historical and geologic record.
It is a fact that weather patterns are shifting from what we consider normal. It’s happened many times before. We, like those who came before us, will have to adapt to the changes.
Climatic change may (probably will) cause great chenges in society. It’s happened many times before.
Look at the totalitarian proposals being made to solve the “problem”. There you will find the motivation for the hoax. If you scare people bad enough they will gladly surrender their freedom to whomever they believe can protect them.

Posted by: traveller at January 21, 2007 4:21 PM
Comment #204314

traveller,

“If you scare people bad enough they will gladly surrender their freedom to whomever they believe can protect them.”

If it worked in Iraq…..

Posted by: Rocky at January 21, 2007 5:14 PM
Comment #204316


“If it worked in Iraq…..”

It didn’t.
Scaring people out of their freedom didn’t start 6 years ago.
You have to go much further back. If you can pry your partisan blinders off and take an objective look you will find that the Dems are as guilty as the Reps.

Posted by: traveller at January 21, 2007 5:41 PM
Comment #204321

traveller, I am unsure why you deny the probability of Global Warming being real? Do you think that Humans have not put large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? Or do you believe that these gases have little or no effect on Earth’s climate?

Posted by: Warren P at January 21, 2007 6:27 PM
Comment #204322

Traveller,
“The moon landings are well documented events.”

Oh? Many people believe they are a hoax, and that the supposed documentation is a hoax. Senator Inhofe believes that, despite all the documentation, Global Warming is a hoax.

Global Warming is well documented, and the evidence is overwhelming. Despite the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, and despite the abundance of well documented historical evidence, you believe it is a hoax, or that it is happening, but has nothing to do with the gigatons of greenhouse gases produced by humanity.

“To buy in to the global warming religion you have to suspend reason and accept that gasses comprising less than 1% of the atmosphere will cause us to broil…”

That is correct, Traveller, though I would not use the word “broil.” No doubt you have heard of the ozone layer. Ozone comprises a portion of the atmosphere measure in parts per ten million. It exists in miniscule amounts. Yet without ozone layer, we would fry.

CO2 exists in the atmosphere, and the increase caused by humanity has amounted from roughly 300 parts per million to 400 parts per million. That is all. Yet that is enough to increase temperatures by a disastrous degree.

It is well documented, Traveller. We are not even talking about political opinion, but measureable scientific evidence.

Posted by: phx8 at January 21, 2007 6:30 PM
Comment #204323

traveller,

“If you can pry your partisan blinders off and take an objective look you will find that the Dems are as guilty as the Reps.”

What exactly is your point?

And why is it that everybody but conservatives are always the folks with the “partisan” blinders?

Posted by: Rocky at January 21, 2007 6:33 PM
Comment #204333


Folks,

Global warming caused by other than natural cycles is, at best, a theory. The idea that most(?) scientists agree cuts no ice. 30 years ago (approximately) Time magazine ran a front cover story about how most(?) scientists were warning that the earth is going to cool to disastrous temperatures with a few decades and we had better spread soot on the polar icecaps so they will melt properly.

Has human activity had an impact on climate? More than likely. Can we change that without bankrupting every economy on earth? Probably not. What will stop the effort? China and India come to mind. Within ten years, according to some estimates, China will spew more CO2 in one year than millions of Ford Excursions will in a decade. Do we really think China will stop it’s economic expansion because we ask them nicely? When pigs fly!

Posted by: John Back at January 21, 2007 8:05 PM
Comment #204335

30 years ago (approximately) Time magazine ran a front cover story about how most(?) scientists were warning that the earth is going to cool to disastrous temperatures

Actually, it was Newsweek, not time, and it was one scientist, and his research was not peer reviewed. He later retracted his work and Newsweek later said it was a serious mistake to run that. Those in denial about the reality of Global Climate change keep bringing this one up, most recently the columnist George Will, even though every person knowledgeable about it, the original author included, has refuted it.

Posted by: bobo at January 21, 2007 8:32 PM
Comment #204369
Global warming caused by other than natural cycles is, at best, a theory. The idea that most(?) scientists agree cuts no ice.

A real president would come out and take a strong stand on the factuality of global warming. So, I guess we are going to have to wait for the couple more years we don’t have.

We got no satisfaction from proving you wrong on Iraq, and we’ll get no satisfaction from this. You were willing to bet a war on an issue that was uncertain at best, now you are willing to bet the earth and the lives of everyone on it on a bet you’re smarter than science a elementary schooler could understand.

Posted by: Max at January 22, 2007 2:25 AM
Comment #204376

When it comes to the facts on global climate change (and Iraq, for that matter), George Bush is the living embodiment of Groucho Marx’s line “Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”

Posted by: bobo at January 22, 2007 8:32 AM
Comment #204385

phx8,
Climate change is well documented. Anthropogenic global warming is an assumption.
The historical and geologic records don’t support the doomsday scenarios postulated by the high priests of your religion.
The eath’s climate varies greatly from hot to cold in a cyclical nature that is just beginning to come to light.
There have been periods that were much warmer than are predicted by your priests without the doom they claim is in store for us. Indeed, the warm periods have always been times of prosperity.
You also ignore the fact that we are at the tail end of an ice age. Warming is to be expected.
The climate doesn’t stay the same forever. It changes no matter what humans do. The phrase “climate change” is redundant because climate changes.
People need to stop panicking and do what life has always done when faced with change-adapt.

Posted by: traveller at January 22, 2007 10:51 AM
Comment #204393
The eath’s climate varies greatly from hot to cold in a cyclical nature that is just beginning to come to light. There have been periods that were much warmer than are predicted by your priests without the doom they claim is in store for us. Indeed, the warm periods have always been times of prosperity. You also ignore the fact that we are at the tail end of an ice age. Warming is to be expected.

You are correct, there are natural variations in Earth’s climate, but these changes happen much more slowly than what is happening now.
Also, the iceages that Earth has expirenced for the past couple million years have followed a cycle of 100,000 years of ice age with 10,000 year long interglacial periods of warm climate. The last Ice Age ended more than 12,000 years ago, a warming of the climate runs counter to what the cyclical nature of Earth’s climate; we should really be getting colder as the current interglacial period ends, but that does not appear to be the case.

Posted by: Warren P at January 22, 2007 12:06 PM
Comment #204398

Newsflash for doubters: Environmentalists and Major Businesses have joined forces to fight global warming.

The URL is http://www.us-cap.org/

Posted by: bobo at January 22, 2007 12:34 PM
Comment #204409

Perhaps most entertaining are the two headlines on my my.yahoo.com page regarding Pfizer’s cutting 10,000 employees…the US headline declares it so Pfizer can save costs…the BBC headline declares Pfizer’s cutting employees even as it is experiencing record profits…

Good to have the perspective of a non-U.S. source for all our news…political, business, etc.

Posted by: Lynne at January 22, 2007 1:44 PM
Comment #204410

Warren P,
Interglacial periods vary in length, usually from 10-20 thousand years. One previous interglacial period lasted 28,000 years. The current period, as predicted by the Milankovitch cycles, may be expected to last as long as 50,000 years.
Here is a small sample of information on ice ages. There is a lot more available if you care to look.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Though the major ice masses retreated about 10,00 years ago, there are still glaciers covering large landmasses. We’re still in an ice age.

Posted by: traveller at January 22, 2007 1:57 PM
Comment #204415

Traveller:

You seem dead set against any global warming theory, despite scientific evidence and agreement. Is that because anything that might address it would affect you or your business?

Posted by: womanmarine at January 22, 2007 2:24 PM
Comment #204422

I find it interesting and baffling that many are concerned about global warming that may or may not occur sometime in the range of 20 to 100 years from now and may or may not cause considerable damage to mankind…then, argue that global terroism is just a conservative scare tactic. Use the same arguments for the consequences of global terrorism (if we do nothing) as you use for global warming (if we do nothing) and you will begin to understand why I find it difficult to take your arguments seriously. I find the immediate threat of terrorism on a global scale much more in need of attention than a theory (or best guess)about global warming.
For those of you who are so worried about the enviromental impact of losing species, try worrying about losing your life, freedom and way of life for a change. Wake up and smell the real world.

Posted by: Jim at January 22, 2007 3:08 PM
Comment #204428

Jim

Who argued that global terrorism is just a scare tactic? That’s a straw man. Disagreement centers predominantly on how to deal with terrorism, not whether it exists. That’s part of our problem: the ax grinders and the partisan wing-nuts muddy the waters with their straw-man arguments and we don’t get anywhere. Straighten up, soldier, or I’ll bust you down to private.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 22, 2007 4:19 PM
Comment #204432

womanmarine,
There is plenty of irrefutable evidence that climate change is occurring. There is none to support the conclusion that man is causing it or can stop it.
Consensus means nothing in science. Truth isn’t determined by consensus.
As far as my business goes, I’m an officer in a construction labor union. There is a lot of incentive to support this alarmist religion if I wasn’t intellectually honest.
As to how it would affect me personally, I’m concerned about the authoritarian proposals being made to “solve” this nonexistent problem.
Everything I’ve read requires the surrender of American sovereignty to a global collective, the abolition of property rights and the lowering of our standard of living. There is a name for it. I’ll let you figure out what it is.
Even that isn’t the reason I oppose the global warming religion.
I oppose it because it’s a big load of scientifically unsound BS.

Posted by: traveller at January 22, 2007 4:36 PM
Comment #204437
There is none to support the conclusion that man is causing it or can stop it.

None that you believe anyway. That’s the difference right there, because the scientific community feels differently. Is it irrefutable? No. Is there any way for it to be irrefutable? Not unless it has already happened. I’m not sure why you believe we shouldn’t err on the side of caution.

And you really can’t call it a nonexistant problem when you don’t really know.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 22, 2007 4:58 PM
Comment #204441

Traveller,

“General Electric, DuPont, BP
America, Alcoa and several utilities, calls for US leadership in
fighting climate change and the creation of a US emissions trading
market.

“We had some success with voluntary rules, but this is not
enough,” Lew Hay III, chief executive of the Florida Power and Light
utility, told a news conference in Washington.

“We definitely need mandatory rules and we need it now,” he said.”

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_corporations_call_for_global_war_01222007.html

Socialists in high places, eh? The quote from the President of Shell Oil is even better. Would you like to see it?

Posted by: phx8 at January 22, 2007 5:28 PM
Comment #204442

Traveller:

Why not list a reliable web site if you want realiable information on global warming, climate change, whatever you prefer to call it??? Wikipedia is known for its errors (anyone can edit it!) and “clearlight” is a commercial hosting ISP (so anyone can post anything)…try this site instead:

US Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Change Web Site

Posted by: Lynne at January 22, 2007 5:47 PM
Comment #204485

Traveller, Here are some links from PBS that you should probably look at.

What’s up with the weather
Graphs tell the story
stories from the ice


Cracking the Ice age
Greenhouse effect
Big chill


Global Dimming may be masking Global Warming’s full impact


Glaciers moving way faster than they are supposed to


Warnings in the Ice

One final link to a site with links to many other sites on this topic
More information

Posted by: Warren P at January 22, 2007 9:12 PM
Comment #204504

womanmarine,
There’s nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution. There are also a lot of good, sound reasons to make our technology as clean as possible. Panic isn’t warranted.

phx8,
Ok, some corporate executives bought in to your religion. So what? Hmm, I wonder if they can see the handwriting on the wall and want to be perceived as good guys.

Lynne,
I referred to articles on ice ages. Wikipedia isn’t one of my favorite references for the very reason you gave. I find it useful for getting leads to other, more reliable references. The ice age article is a good one, though.
The article on clearlight is fully referenced and linked. I guess that doesn’t mean anything since it includes heretical statements.
Like I said in my previous post, there’s a lot more available if you care to look.

Warren P,
I’ve seen ‘em. There’s plenty of documentation of the indisputable fact of climate change all right.

Posted by: traveller at January 22, 2007 10:19 PM
Comment #204531

Traveller:

Who do you interpret as panicking? Because scientists are saying we MAY only have about 10 years? They may be wrong, but I don’t want to wait to find out.

In fact, I would rather we take action before the 10 years, they could be wrong that way too (it could be sooner). It is not irrefutable, a word you like, but I still prefer to act as if it is. Some action in that direction, and soon, is much more preferable in my mind than waiting until we have irrefutable proof that it’s too late.

And sorry, calling it a religion is really off-putting and unnecessary.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 23, 2007 12:13 AM
Comment #204560

Nuclear power has always been the answer. But the “problem” the libs have is how to turn America into a socialist nation, they aren’t working on the energy problem, they are hyjacking the energy problem to force their political agenda. So the radical left is looking for different “answers” which use the enivronment to force America into a socialist model.

What is the number one, absolute LAW of the left? NO NUCLEAR POWER! Why? Because they don’t want America to have cheap, clean, energy to power it’s economy.

Posted by: Stephen at January 23, 2007 2:38 AM
Comment #204572

bobo,

I did a Google of Newsweek global cooling and found the original article. It was not just one scientist talking about global cooling, it was several climatologists from NOAA and other places. Perhaps the idea of melting the icecaps was one person’s idea(which was not taken too seriously in the article), but the idea of global cooling was being taken quite seriously.

Posted by: John Back at January 23, 2007 5:34 AM
Comment #204575

Traveller, in your comment earlier in the thread you said that you believed Global Warming to be speculation at best. In the links I provided, you can see how temperature follows CO2 levels very closely for the past million years. Recently CO2 levels have skyrocketed, this means that a temperature rise is sure to come, and has already started to come to be. Global Warming is definitely not speculation. It is probably a very grave and imminent threat, but you are right in saying that there is a small possibility that it is just a big mistake on our knowledge of how our planet operates.

Posted by: Warren P at January 23, 2007 7:48 AM
Comment #204598

Traveller,

People need to stop panicking and do what life has always done when faced with change-adapt.

Aka survive. Thru adaptation.

And I fail to see how doing NOTHING to face global warming is adapting, sorry.
Changing our way of life IS adapting, not panicking.

BTW, life not always succeed to adapt changes.
Human will not always, too.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 23, 2007 12:11 PM
Comment #204781

Traveller:

Like I said in my previous post, there’s a lot more available if you care to look.

But, as you’ve already proven…you don’t like to look at anything reliable and scientifically backed…

Clearlight is still an ISP that hosts anyone who care to pay…EPA is well-founded and scientific…at least until Bush finishes his job of closing down all the EPA’s research libraries (Laura the Librarian obviously has no influence on her husband…first thing Dubya did was cut funding to US libraries!).

Posted by: Lynne at January 24, 2007 11:38 AM
Post a comment