I read that Pelosi has been working behind closed doors to bring a vote on cap and trade THIS FRIDAY if possible.

This administration has already admitted that utility bills will rise dramatically if this is put into law.

THIS CRAP AND TRADE WILL KILL PEOPLE! Every summer we hear of people, especially older people on fixed incomes, dying from the heat BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO RUN THE AIR CONDITIONER.

If this goes through, many more American citizens will die from heat.

And for what?

So that Al Gore and associates can become even more wealthy than they already are.

If you feel the same way I do about this, you will call your Representative and Senators about it TODAY.

I tried to post on this earlier before my computer crashed. The Dem moves on the Waxman-Markey bill have been incredible. Yesterday they added 300 pages to the bill (now 1201 pages long with more revisions possible) . It will at best have a 24 hr "sunshine " viewing before Pelosi tries to bum-rush it through the House Friday . That gives everyone a day to contact their Reps to tell them how they feel about it . Again no one will have time to read and digest the particulars of the legislation.

Also today was the deadline for public comment on the EPA's attempted power grab that will have them regulate greenhouse gas emissions from industry and agriculture. SCOTUS gave them cover by ruling that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The new proposed regulations would give the EPA enormous powers to use the Clean Air Act to go after business and private citizens because of Co2 emissions .

The propose cap and trade legislation and the EPA's expanding mandate to regulate Co2 emissions is the hammer and nail in the coffin of the US economy.

Supposedly more language is being added to the bill as the Democrats strong arm and bribe other members of the House to sign on . The bill will not be in it's final form until minutes before it is voted on. It has become such a farce that environmental groups like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, as well as the open-government organization the Sunlight Foundation have come out against the bill.

The Obama adm. Is changing the wording of terrorist acts to man caused disasters... clearly Waxman-Markey is a man caused disaster in the making .It has the potential to be the Smoot-Hawley of our time.

Remember that Obama campaign pledge . 95% of Americans would not see a tax increase?? Bwaaaahaaahaaaaaaa!!

Lol... here is a change brought about by special interest lobbying . Tuesday Waxman announced that the oversight of cap and trade related to agriculture would be shifted from the EPA (which SCOTUS already ruled is the lead agency) to the Dept. of Agriculture.

The American Farm Bureau says cap and trade would cost the average farmer $175 on every dairy cow and $80 for beef cattle. So evidently the climate then becomes a secondary consideration when compared to the price of milk and a burger .

Now you know about price supports and the subsidies big agriculture gets for not growing stuff ? Well us tax payers are also about to shell out $$ to companies that agree to NOT cut down trees! But it gets even better because not only will that apply to domestic business... it will also apply to INTERNATIONAL businesses as well!! So if a company decides to not cut down a tree in the Amazon they will profit from it.

And what do they expect to accomplish with all the painful ,job killing ,economy destroying provisions in the bill ? Well according to Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050
(the stated goal of the Waxman-Markey bill ) would reduce temperature in 2050 by 0.05 degree Celsius.

(I am surprised at the lack of response to this posting given how important this vote is today)

I'm sure my Congressman will vote no but I contacted him anyway. The Wall Street Journal reveals (to no surprise here) why Pelosi is trying to ram this through, "the global warming tide is again shifting (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html)." Got to hurry and get this ridiculous scheme through before they're found out to the frauds they are on the issue.


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.

As with health care, while much of the world is coming back to reality our forward-thinking Democrats are clamoring to jump into a disaster with both feet.

The measure was passed in a close vote in the House yesterday(219-212... 8 RINOs broke ranks* ).Before the vote the Dems added a 300 page addition to the bill (at 3 AM). Nobody read the bill in full before the vote.

If the precentages are the same in the Senate the bill can still be blocked by filibuster .

Boehner was fantastic during the House debate, confronting the Democrats with the content of the 300 page last minute additions. He really p*ssed off Waxman.


After Boehner spoke for a few minutes, the leader donned a pair of reading glasses and began leafing through a gigantic, white binder. At that point, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) asked the chair if Boehner could do that.

“I know we have this magic minute that gives leaders a lot of extra time to speak. But I'm just wondering if there is some limit under the rules on the time that a leader may take, even though the time yielded was not 20 or 30 minutes?” Waxman asked.

Waxman also wondered if any “historical records would be broken” by Boehner reading part of the bill and queried whether the tactic was “an attempt to try to get some people to leave on a close vote?”

The Speaker Pro Tempore, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) then ruled that Boehner was order.

“It is the custom of the house is to listen to the leader's comments,” Tauscher said, prompting a round of applause by Republicans.

Tauscher's ruling immediately set House precedent, meaning Boehner could continue to read the legislation in order.
http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/26/house-filibuster/

Steve you are correct that there was an urgency in the Democrat's moves that was intended to get it passed before the scientific evidence against man made climate change overwhelmed the rationale .
Yesterday the Competitive Enterprise Institute said it was releasing "an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency."
It is ,according to Richard Morrison of the institute ,"internal EPA e-mail messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that [a] report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the administration's agenda of regulating carbon dioxide."

The author is Alan Carlin ,an economist and 38 year veteran at the EPA.
What his report says is that the EPA, by adopting the UN's 2007 "Fourth Assessment" report, is relying on outdated research by its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The research, it says, is "at best three years out of date in a rapidly changing field" and ignores the latest scientific findings.
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

Carlin has been transferred off all climate-related work.

A new research paper by
Nicola Scafetta
Physics Department, Duke University, and Richard C. Willson Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor
(ACRIM), Coronado, California ACRIM Staff Information (http://www.acrim.com/staff.htm)
Concludes that total solar irradiance (TSI) is the determining factor in climate change .
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2008GL036307.pdf

The authors state in their conclusions that:


“This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008]. Current climate models [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming.


President Obama in April said "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over" .Evidently the EPA and the Democrat Congress did not get those instructions yet.

*Here are the 8 RINOs
Mary Bono Mack (Calif.)202-225-533 (Sonny Bono's widow)
Mike Castle(Del)202-225-4165
Mark Steven Kirk (Ill.)202-225-4835
Leonard Lance (NJ)202-225-5361
Frank LoBiondo (NJ)202-225-6572
John McHugh (NY)202-225-4611
Dave Reichert (Washington)202-225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765.

http://spectator.org/assets/mc/capandtax804.jpg

Looking forward to supporting their primary challengers next year.

Immediately after the vote ,Washington DC was hit by a hail storm.

If this passes the Senate, the worst hit will be the very people that Obama promised to be looking out for; the poor, underprivileged.

One wonders how these poor people will cope with $500 per month electric bills and $7.00 gal gasoline.

Hey Pinocchio! Move over for Obama.

Waxman claims (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/29/waxman_gop_rooting_against_country_because_of_ener gy_bill_vote.html) that Republicans who voted against the bill are not only "rooting against the country" but against the world.


Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) on Republicans voting against the energy plan and Rep. John Boehner's comments on the House floor Friday evening: "They [Republicans] want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Democrats. They're rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global warming."

How many Dems voted against it, 44? Remember the brouhaha over Rush hoping Obama would fail? Is it really any different to claim congressional Republicans basically hope America fails?

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman of the NY Times thinks climate change 'denial' is treasonous (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?hpw).

Remember the good ol' days of the Bush years when dissent was patriotic?

And for good measure, Obama's energy czar hasn't read the bill (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/29/video-energy-czar-hasnt-read-cap-tax-either/) either.

The propose cap and trade legislation and the EPA's expanding mandate to regulate Co2 emissions is the hammer and nail in the coffin of the US economy.
Waxman claims that Republicans who voted against the bill are not only "rooting against the country" but against the world. Hello wingnuts:

Wow. One side thinks the other is out to destroy the world as we know it. Let me see, you've got the climate changers on one side, and the deniers who think global warming is a hoax on the other.

Seems to me this is a question for Bill Nye, the Science Guy. It would, too, if you believed in science. But, like Intelligent Design, you've got your own set of scientists who support your conclusions...

Oh, I know. You'll say the climate warmers have their own scientists in their pockets too... But, from what I know of science, MOST scientists don't care much about the politics of the science they're doing. They just want to do the science.

So, if one had to vote on which group of scientists they should believe, it would be MY view they should believe the ones whose side is taken by the ones who have been right in the past more times than they've been wrong.

For SURE, your scientists are all wet if they're from the same crop who are foisting that ID crap on us. You also lose credibility because you BELIEVE the ID crap science. As a matter of fact, I think YOUR side has been against science from the git go.

Therefore, given the recent histories of each side, I think you guys are bonkers and I think Henry Waxman is right.

excon

PS> You DO know that Henry Waxman is my friend. He encouraged me to run for president of the Beverly Hills Young Democrats after HIS term ended? I helped Henry win his first seat in the California House.

Not, that that's got anything to do with anything...

Does Waxman read his own legislation ? I doubt he had the time to finish reading all the pork that was added to this sausage.

Tell me how you can fix the climate by giving polluters the right to pollute if they can afford to buy the credit of someone who doesn't produce butkis for the right to emit as much cr*p as the polluter desires.

I'm telling you this is a commodity traders wet dream . They just found a new phoney market to trade in that will probably be more lucrative than the derivative market. This is why a$$holes like Immelt and the statists in GoldmanSachs all love this stuff.

According to the LA Slimes , the U.S. “would use more carbon-dioxide heavy coal in 2020 than it did in 2005”because of the bill .Time quotes an EPA analysis of the bill that forecast
the total amount of renewable energy generation under Waxman-Markey would actually be less than the renewable energy that would have been produced without the bill.
What Does the Energy Bill Really Mean for CO2 Cuts? - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1907528,00.html)

It's a scam and the sad part is I think you know it.

PS> You DO know that Henry Waxman is my friend. He encouraged me to run for president of the Beverly Hills Young Democrats after HIS term ended? I helped Henry win his first seat in the California House.

Not, that that's got anything to do with anything......

Yeah, I remember you calling him a real bulldog and I think you said something about watching out for the guy because of that.

If you read my earlier post, "13 times the number (of scientists) who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary" are skeptical of climate change. I'm sure they're all IDer's... not. All I'm saying is let's have an honest debate before we go screw the public.

I have to wonder who is truly hostile to scientific inquiry . Seems that the global warming crowd have turned "settled science" into a cult-like orthodoxy .

A perfect example is the story of Canadian Polar Bear expert Dr Mitchell Taylor .

For 30 years he has studied Arctic polar bears in academia and as a government employee. He has noticed that projections about the bear population are wrong and that the bear population far from decreasing are higher than they have been in 30 years.

He also has studied the melting of the icecaps and says it is not C02 causing warming as various proven flawed computer models predicted ;but instead currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

Well Dr Taylor obtained funding to attend this weeks meeting of the IUCN/SSC (International Union for Conservation of Nature)Polar Bear Specialist Group(PBSG) in Copenhagen .

But his attendance was voted down by organization members because of his views. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former pupil of Dr Taylor's, explained in an email that his rejection had nothing to do with his expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition”...that his positions “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”.

OH THE HERESY!!

So who then is clinging to orthodoxy ? Why does consensus science try to purge dissenting opinion based on valid scientific research ?

Hello tom:

I'm not going to argue the argument... I don't know why your guy isn't believed. I'm NOT a scientist.

I just don't believe science has an agenda. I believe, however, that ID scientists DO have an agenda, and if the guy you're talking about is of that genre, then it's clear why his science was rejected.

Plus, if you want to convince me that your side is right, you won't do it by telling me that MY side is only doing what it does in order to destroy the country.

That ain't going to happen here.

excon

“it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”

That darn sure sounds political to me.

I do not claim fidelity to ID for the record.I don't think natural selection conflicts with my religious beliefs at all.

So let me get this straight . Only ID scientists have an agenda... It couldn't happen that other science is flawed .Never before has science gotten their conclusions wrong even against prevailing consesus ? All I can say is wow ! There is nothing in the scientific method that supports consensus .Karl Popper instead said that science is a method of falsification ,not consensus . Scientist should be researching to find the flaws in consensus.

But it doesn't surprise me that scientific research today attempts to pad consensus . As the example of Dr Taylor shows ,there is more economic benefits to travel with the lemmings .

All I'm saying is let's have an honest debate before we go screw the public.
“it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.Hello again, Steve:

I'm not sure what the last means or who said it... But, let's talk about your "debate".

There is NO debate. The debate resides only in the heads of the rightwingers... I'm going to use ID again, because it's a PERFECT example...

In terms of evolution, there's no debate there either... There's established science. Then there's others who claim something different than that, ergo - it's a debate. But, it ain't no debate.

If we're both looking at a green wall, and you declare it to be purple and say we should debate it, I'll look at you funny. I'm looking at you funny right now.

excon

In terms of evolution, there's no debate there either... There's established science. Then there's others who claim something different than that, ergo - it's a debate. But, it ain't no debate.


Of course it is debatable . Evolution scientists like Stephen Jay Gould and are constantly adding new details to the consensus , that in turn changes the consensus . There are plenty of scientists that dispute the details of evolutution consensus without being ID proponents .

Here is consensus for you . The theory of continental drift was proposed by Alfred Wegener but was rejected as heresy by the consensus scientists . It took 50 years to prove the theory correct .

Here's another one . Barry Marshall and Robin Warren concluded that Helicobacter pylori was the cause of stomach ulcers in 1982 . It was widely rejected by consensus science.But 23 years later in 2005, Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on Helicobacter pylori ,and that is now the consensus.

Hello again, Steve:

I'm not sure what the last means or who said it... But, let's talk about your "debate".

The quote was from tom's post on why Dr Taylor was denied the right to attend the conference. It was for political reasons (i.e. based on an opinion, not his scientific credentials).


There is NO debate. The debate resides only in the heads of the rightwingers... I'm going to use ID again, because it's a PERFECT example...

What the heck does ID have to do with this? You're expecting us to conclude that these scientists aren't to be considered because they're 'probably' IDer's but you've given us no evidence of that. Isn't that your argument against us on climate change, that we expect you to consider evidence that doesn't exist?


In terms of evolution, there's no debate there either... There's established science. Then there's others who claim something different than that, ergo - it's a debate. But, it ain't no debate.

There's no debate because evolution has been elevated to a religion. I'm not interested in a debate on evolution or ID, that's not the subject of this post, but until evolutionists can fill some holes like where did this primordial soup that everything came from come from, it's a BELIEF and open to debate.

But in this case there IS evidence that conflicts with the consensus, it's been enumerated here often but the consensus continues to ignore it and their enablers continue to preach impending doom. The number of skeptics is growing and the scientific community owes it everyone to hear them out.


If we're both looking at a green wall, and you declare it to be purple and say we should debate it, I'll look at you funny. I'm looking at you funny right now.

What colors do you see?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2009/06/colors.gif

Of course it is debatable . Evolution scientists like Stephen Jay Gould and are constantly adding new details to the consensus , that in turn changes the consensus . There are plenty of scientists that dispute the details of evolutution consensus without being ID proponents .

Here is consensus for you . The theory of continental drift was proposed by Alfred Wegener but was rejected as heresy by the consensus scientists . It took 50 years to prove the theory correct . Hello again, tom:

No, it's NOT debatable! Just like the science surrounding continental drift is no longer debatable, as you point out. Oh, I'm sure there's a few crackpot scientists who debate it. But, I don't know who with.

In terms of evolution, it's true that new details emerge as we learn more, but the CONSENSUS about evolution itself, is NOT changed by the new details, contrary to your statement - it's ENHANCED by it. Similarly, we still study plate tectonics to enhance the science. But, the established science isn't going to change - EVER.

I don't doubt that there ARE plenty of scientists who dispute global warming, evolution and probably our moon trip too... But, their existence changes nothing. Established science is just that - established.

excon

What the heck does ID have to do with this? You're expecting us to conclude that these scientists aren't to be considered because they're 'probably' IDer's but you've given us no evidence of that. Hello again, Steve:

In terms of our discussion about global warming, I'll tell you exactly what ID and evolution have to do with it. You don't believe clearly established science. Therefore, in my view, you have NO credibility on science - period.

excon

There is no such thing as scientific consensus . Consensus of politics .The only time it is invoked is when the science is debatable. Nobody ever says E=MC2 is consensus because there is no reason to do so. Nobody contends it as fact. Because facts rely on reproducible results.

Here is another example that illustrates the futility of the claim that there can ever be a consensus in science.

In the past one in 6 women died from fever after child birth .1795, Alexander Gordon said the fevers were infectious processes .The consensus said no.

1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious.The consensus said no.

1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post.

By the beginning of the 20th Century however ...125 years later ..they were proven right and the consensus scientists wrong.

The consensus thought pellagra was infectious .They were wrong . It is a dietary problem.

The world can thank the memory of the Pasteurs that they bucked consensus thinking.

Ususally it is the fringe minority scientists who make the breakthroughs because they dare defy and reject consensus orthodoxy.

Hello again, Steve:

In terms of our discussion about global warming, I'll tell you exactly what ID and evolution have to do with it. You don't believe clearly established science. Therefore, in my view, you have NO credibility on science - period.

It's a fact that science can't tell me where that primordial soup that everything comes from came from. I believe facts, that's enough. I can also read. What makes you any more credible on science?

Steve
P.S. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what colors you saw in that image.

Ususally it is the fringe minority scientists who make the breakthroughs because they dare defy and reject consensus orthodoxy. Hello again, tom:

I'm not sure if you're listening to yourself... I think you said that plate tectonics is proven science - or to use your words, a consensus. Are you trying to now say that some fringe crackpot scientist MAY be able to disprove that science??

I think you are, and I think you're dreaming.

excon

Excon,

You have said yourself that you are not a scientist and do not know or understand the science behind global warming.

So... if you don't have an understanding of the science involved, how can you possibly say that the science is proven fact? You don't know what the facts are or whether they really are facts or not.

There are several thousand scientists who at the very least question what you are referring to as "facts". Many of them are members of the same organizations as the scientists who support the concept of global warming, with similar bona fides, and similar backgrounds. If science doesn't have an agenda, then these scientists don't have any more of an agenda than the ones who push the global warming theory do.

So how do you know that the wall really is green if you don't know the definition of green or purple, and there are two different sets of people telling you which is which, and both are equally respected in the field of wall coloration? Because that is the situation.

Furthermore, ignoring whether the global warming guys are right or wrong, how does this particular bill passed by the House on Friday deal with the issue of global warming? The supposed purpose of the bill is to

1) cap greenhouse gas emissions,
2) lower the cost of energy for families,
3) create green jobs that help the economy,
4) create energy independence.

How does the bill accomplish any of those things? Unless you have read all 1200 pages of the original bill and the 300 pages of amendments made Thursday night before the bill was voted on, you don't know the answer to that question. Even Carol Browner, the "Energy Czar" admitted she hasn't read the whole bill. Members of Congress have been complaining that they haven't had time to read it before having to vote on it. So how do you know what this bill accomplishes or fails to accomplish? How do you know what it does in ADDITION to its purported purposes? What pork was added to it? What has been added to it that has nothing to do with energy issues and emmissions control?

Forget the global warming debate, excon. The Bill itself is an unknown. How can you support it if you don't even know what it says?

Elliot

You have said yourself that you are not a scientist and do not know or understand the science behind global warming.

So... if you don't have an understanding of the science involved, how can you possibly say that the science is proven fact? You don't know what the facts are or whether they really are facts or not.Hello again, El:

No, I don't know the science behind it. But, I DO understand that throwing our trash into the air is going to have SOME consequences. I know too, that it doesn't take a scientific genius figure that out.

So, if I've got a group of scientists saying that, YEAH, throwing trash into the air DOES do bad stuff, as opposed to those who say that, nahhhh, it doesn't do anything, I'm going to believe the ones who believe more like me. Because that other argument is really pretty stupid on its face.

excon

Hello again, El:

No, I don't know the science behind it. But, I DO understand that throwing our trash into the air is going to have SOME consequences. I know too, that it doesn't take a scientific genius figure that out.

So, if I've got a group of scientists saying that, YEAH, throwing trash into the air DOES do bad stuff, as opposed to those who say that, nahhhh, it doesn't do anything, I'm gonna believe the ones who believe more like me. Because that other argument is really pretty stupid on its face.

Still perpetuating the myth that we don't believe throwing trash in the air does bad stuff? And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what colors you saw.

Still perpetuating the myth that we don't believe throwing trash in the air does bad stuff? And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what colors you saw.Hello again, Steve:

What bad stuff DOES it do?

excon

PS> I'm colorblind.

Hello again, Steve:

In terms of our discussion about global warming, I'll tell you exactly what ID and evolution have to do with it. You don't believe clearly established science. Therefore, in my view, you have NO credibility on science - period.

excon

You rant like any other religious zealot.

Scientific IDEAS are NEVER established. They are only accepted until someone proves them WRONG. And that happens over and over and---.

Attributing global warming, if it even exists, to human activities has become a RELIGION. Like any organized religion it resists any attempt to change its basic belief system, and the supression of facts contrary to that is common to religious fanaticism.

This bogus science will destroy this country if we can't stop it.

Do you want higher unemployment rates? 90% higher electriity bills? Really expensive gasoline? Your food is produced by farmers that use fuel and hauled by trucks that burn fuel. Fertilizer is also derived from fossil fuels. You like higher food bills? Even worse, it might result in food shortages. You can't eat that gold you're hoarding.

All these and more will be the result of cap and TAX if is implemented. And that cap and tax is based on BOGUS science.

Why is this country Hell-bent on suicide?

Hello again, Steve:

What bad stuff DOES it do?

excon

PS> I'm colorblind.

It certainly doesn't help people breathe well.

Steve
P.S. Then why were you talking about us looking at colored walls? If you're colorblind you'd have no reason to look at me funny if I said the green wall was purple, how would you know? By the way, the green and blue are the same color. Things aren't always as they appear (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/24/the-blue-and-the-green/).

Hello again, El:

No, I don't know the science behind it. But, I DO understand that throwing our trash into the air is going to have SOME consequences. I know too, that it doesn't take a scientific genius figure that out.

So, if I've got a group of scientists saying that, YEAH, throwing trash into the air DOES do bad stuff, as opposed to those who say that, nahhhh, it doesn't do anything, I'm gonna believe the ones who believe more like me. Because that other argument is really pretty stupid on its face.

excon

Define "trash".

Sounds simple, no? But it isn't quite as simple as you think. You see, by "trash" people are referring to greenhouse gasses. They are afraid of greenhouse gasses being thrown into the atmosphere and ruining the environment.

But what are greenhouse gasses?

Greenhouse gasses are gasses that absorb or emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. They are, for the most part, naturally occurring and NECESSARY gasses that are necessary for sustaining life on Earth. Greenhouse gasses include:

Water vapor - (between 36% and 72% of the total of greenhouse gasses)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) - (9%-26%)
Methane (CH4) - (4-9%)
Ozone (O3) - (3-7%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) - (trace amounts)

All of these are naturally occurring gasses, and MUST exist in order for life to exist. They are also natural byproducts of life.

Plants need CO2 to survive, to breath, and they give off oxygen as a byproduct of respiration. We in turn breath oxygen and give off CO2 as a byproduct of respiration. The existence and even the increase in CO2 is necessary for the production of more oxygen for us to breath. Limiting CO2 is the same as limiting oxygen production. CO2 is not a poison. Carbon MONOXIDE (CO) is a poison. But this bill doesn't limit CO production, it limits CO2 production.

Then there's water vapor. Are you truly going to argue that water vapor is a poison or a pollutant?

How about ozone? Ozone is what protects us from the radiation of the sun. We NEED ozone.

Methane? Remember that the global warming guys are trying to get us to use natural gas instead of oil? "Natural Gas" is methane... the supposedly clean stuff.

Nitrous Oxide? It is also known as "laughing gas" and is used as an anaesthetic in dentistry. But it is also a naturally occurring gas that regulates ozone levels in the atmosphere. If you eliminate N2O, you get too much ozone, which results in radiation poisoning. (Too much of it isn't really a problem because it breaks down into nitrogen and oxygen, which end up helping plants grow.)

What these scientists are calling "trash" is anything but. It is part of the environment, and if we limit it, we limit the environment.

So... again, we are stuck with a "political" definition of garbage which translates as "greenhouse gasses" but which differs from the scientific definitions of these gasses and from the common sense definition of "garbage".

Now... there are other gasses created by industry that are indeed poisonous and bad for the atmosphere. The problem is that this bill doesn't address the poisons. It only addresses the ones that are not poisonous. Why? Because the poisons can't be accused of contributing to global warming. If they went after those poisons, they libs would have to admit that their crusade isn't against global warming, but rather against INDUSTRY and CAPITALISM.

The only problem with their argument is that the facts on the ground don't bear up their claim. You see, their claim is that we are entering a period of warming caused by industrial production of CO2, CH4 and N2O. Problem is, there is no global warming taking place. We are actually in a period of global cooling, where temperatures are going DOWN not UP. This has actually been shown by several meteorologists and is evident based on meteorological records over the past several decades. We are actually entering a mini-ice-age. And it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide, methane or nitrous oxide. It is just part of a natural cycle that occurs.

Bottom line: if scientists can't even agree on a definition of "garbage", and define beneficial and necessary substances that are a natural part of life on Earth as "garbage", then how can we possibly say that the science on this subject is "closed".

By the way, have you ever read any of the scientific work written by the so-called "global wartming deniers"? Try reading some of their stuff. You might find it compelling enough to question the "consensus opinion".

By the way, you do realize, of course, that the words "consensus opinion" are just a fancy way of being wrong with a lot of other people.

Stop following consensus and try thinking for yourself. Stop drinking the koolaid and read up on the subject before you come to a conclusion. Don't take anyone else's word for it. Do your own research.

Elliot

So, if I've got a group of scientists saying that, YEAH, throwing trash into the air DOES do bad stuff, as opposed to those who say that, nahhhh, it doesn't do anything, I'm gonna believe the ones who believe more like me. Because that other argument is really pretty stupid on its face.

excon

Do you realize what you just said here. It is not that you believe that these scientists are necessarily right. You just agree with them because they are close to your opinion.

Well, in that case, why bother with science at all. As long as you are better at convincing someone of something, be it right or wrong, we should go along with it.

You essentially just admitted that the global warming debate isn't about science at all, but rather about swaying public opinion regardless of whether the science is actually right or not.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING FROM THE BEGINNING!!! ALL PR, NO HARD SCIENCE!!!

You just proved our point for us. Thanks.

Elliot

Do you realize what you just said here. It is not that you believe that these scientists are necessarily right. You just agree with them because they are close to your opinion.

Well, in that case, why bother with science at all. As long as you are better at convincing someone of something, be it right or wrong, we should go along with it.

You essentially just admitted that the global warming debate isn't about science at all, but rather about swaying public opinion regardless of whether the science is actually right or not.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING FROM THE BEGINNING!!! ALL PR, NO HARD SCIENCE!!!

You just proved our point for us. Thanks.

Elliot

Don't confuse him with facts, his mind is made up.:D

OK ex (and all you others that say we skeptics don't rely on science), here's the latest science:

June Global Temperatures Drop Again (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/june_global_temperatures_drop_to_1979_1998_average/), 8 Year Downtrend Continues

That means that global temperatures have DROPPED approximately .74°F (.39°C) since The Goracle released "An Inconvenient Truth."

Do you realize what you just said here. It is not that you believe that these scientists are necessarily right. You just agree with them because they are close to your opinion.Hello again, El:

Some peoples opinions on science are based on religion. I ain't one of 'em.

excon

Hello again, El:

Some peoples opinions on science are based on religion. I ain't one of 'em.

excon

Preposterous!

Your opinion, if I understand it on this subject, IS religion.

Science makes no claims of having absolute or final answers. Only ideas that seem to provide answers for the world around us UNTIL EVIDENCE DISPROVING THOSE IDEAS IS PRESENTED.

Religion holds that there ARE absolutes. I can discuss religion with anyone of any persuasion, but when I was pastor, I would NOT allow anyone to speak from my pulpit that held a view that I viewed as error. Part of my job was to keep that pulpit true to the beliefs that I hold.

When scientists refuse to hear a contridictory point of view because they bellieve it to be wrong, then they have crossed over the line from science to religion.

Science makes no claims of having absolute or final answers. Only ideas that seem to provide answers for the world around us UNTIL EVIDENCE DISPROVING THOSE IDEAS IS PRESENTED.Hello again,

I rest my case.

excon

Democrats Admit That Their Cap and Trade Bill Is a Job Killer (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/07/06/democrats-admit-that-their-cap-and-trade-bill-is-a-job-killer.html)
July 06, 2009 11:02 AM ET | Peter Roff | Permanent Link | Print

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog


In her remarks bringing the debate over the climate bill to a close, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California urged her colleagues to vote in favor of the cap and trade bill, saying the measure was about four things: "jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs."

She was right—the House-passed version of cap and trade is all about jobs: jobs lost, jobs never created, jobs sent overseas, and, unbelievably, jobs people will be paid for doing long after they cease to exist.

According to Friday's Washington Times, the legislation includes language that provides, should it become law, that people who lose their jobs because of it "could get a weekly paycheck for up to three years, subsidies to find new work and other generous benefits—courtesy of Uncle Sam."

How generous are these benefits? Well, according to the Times, "Adversely affected employees in oil, coal and other fossil-fuel sector jobs would qualify for a weekly check worth 70 percent of their current salary for up to three years. In addition, they would get $1,500 for job-search assistance and $1,500 for moving expenses from the bill's 'climate change worker adjustment assistance' program, which is expected to cost $4.2 billion from 2011 to 2019."

Instead of being a the source of millions of new jobs of "green jobs"—as House Democrats are fond of saying over and over again—the provision is a hidden admission that their effort is a job killer, not just a massive new tax on energy.

Building a safety net into the legislation is probably the responsible thing to do. The government is going to be directly responsible for the destruction of millions of jobs if the bill passed by the House becomes law—anywhere from a net loss of .5 percent of total jobs over the first 10 years, according to the liberal Brookings Institution, to 3 million by the year 2030, according to the industry-backed Coalition for Affordable American Energy. But wouldn't it be better to leave the jobs alone in the first place? It would certainly be cheaper.

Whatever the Dems say you can pretty well count on the opposite to be true.

Hello again, El:

Some peoples opinions on science are based on religion. I ain't one of 'em.

excon

I beg to differ. You have just said that you don't know the science, don't understand the science, don't CARE about the science. You are agreeing with the global warming theorists because their opinion matches yours. You are taking it on blind faith, not science, that they are right, without even understanding what it is they have said on the subject, much less what any others might say. Pure blind faith.

THAT is the definition of religious fanaticism, excon. By your own admission, you don't know why you believe what you believe, but you believe it anyway without even taking the time to understand your own beliefs.

You know that I'm pretty religious. I argue religion all the time. I know what the opinions of others' religions are and I understand how to defend against those opinions of others. Yet for all my understanding of Jewish theology, I admitt that much of what I believe is pure blind faith. But I take the time to understand as much as I can about my religious beliefs on a basis other than blind faith.

You, however, haven't even take the time to understand why you believe the way you do. Your's is blind faith without investigation and self reflection. That's fine, in and of itself. I've got nothing against that. But you put forth an opinion about the beliefs of others in this area without even having a basic understanding of your own beliefs and why they are what they are.

You, my friend, are a global-warming-religion fanatic. You accept the tenants of that faith without an understanding of the reason WHY those tenants exist, and without the slightest interest in finding out. All by your own admission, I might add. And when someone questions those tenents, you do what most people who are blind adherants would do... you attack the questioner. (At least it's with words and not with sticks and swords.) And when pushed to the wall, you pull out the holy scripture of "consensus opinion" to defend your position. You are the perfect religious zealot... but your religion is global warming.

Sorry to have to tell it like it is, Excon, but you're a global warming Chassid.

Elliot

I beg to differ. You have just said that you don't know the science, don't understand the science, don't CARE about the science.Hello again, El:

I don't think I said I was ignorant of the science... You are right, however, in that my understanding of the science is rudimentary, at best. What I know is that our atmosphere is finite. Are you impressed yet?? Hold on. I got more. I know that when you throw trash into the air, it DOES something to the atmosphere. I can tell, you're impressed now. But wait, I'm not done. I'm even going to pronounce that what it DOES, isn't good. Hold on. I'm even going to say, it's BAD. Yup - BAD!

Now, you can make fun of my science all you want. You, on the other hand, say throwing your trash into the air is fine, and if I say it does anything, I'm perpetrating a HOAX on you. That's YOUR science - throw trash around and it's cool. Really?? I don't think you listen to yourself very often.

Now, I don't know about you... But, I choose the side who makes at least a little bit of sense.

excon

Humans exhale C02... BAD

Plants exhale O2... GOOD

Got it ?

Hello again, El:

I don't think I said I was ignorant of the science... You are right, however, in that my understanding of the science is rudimentary, at best. What I know is that our atmosphere is finite. Are you impressed yet???? Hold on. I got more. I know that when you throw trash into the air, it DOES something to the atmosphere. I can tell, you're impressed now. But wait, I'm not done. I'm even going to pronounce that what it DOES, isn't good. Hold on. I'm even gonna say, it's BAD. Yup - BAD!

Now, you can make fun of my science all you want. You, on the other hand, say throwing your trash into the air is fine, and if I say it does anything, I'm perpetrating a HOAX on you. That's YOUR science - throw trash around and it's cool. Really??? I don't think you listen to yourself very often.

Now, I dunno about you... But, I choose the side who makes at least a little bit of sense.

excon

Well, there's a nice scientific explanation. If you want to do this at the schoolkid level, I'm happy to take it to that level.

But you still haven't answered some important questions.

1) What garbage is being thrown in the air? Last time I threw a used soda can in the air, it had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the atmosphere. What garbage are you talking about? (Until you define the cause of the problem, you can't define the problem.)

2) What BAD does it do? As I said, last time I threw that empty soda can in the air, it didn't do anything bad. If someone had been standing under it, they might have gotten bonked on the head. But I was careful, and nobody got hurt. Throwing my garbage in the air didn't do anything bad at all. Made a loud noise when it hit the ground, but that's about it. It didn't cause a problem with the air I was breathing. (Until you define the mechanism of the problem, you can't figure out how to solve it.)

3) Atmoshpere is finite... true. But with all the Billions of people constantly breathing, and all the BILLIONS who have breathed our atmosphere before through millions of years of history, not to mention all the animals that breath atmosphere too, shouldn't the atmosphere have been used up by now? Or at least it should be running short by now, shouldn't it? (Until you can identify the parameters of the problem or even if there is a problem, you can't solve the problem.)

These are important questions. I would like you to answer them for homework. We can review your answers tomorrow and continue with the lesson then.

You see, the explanation you have given doesn't make even a little bit of sense. That's because you don't understand it yourself. If it made a little bit of sense, there would be something to talk about. But it doesn't. So we'll take it from the beginning, and see if you can't learn something about your own belief system in the process.

Elliot

If Gore, Waxman and the others who voted for the cap and trade bill were really serious about ridding us of that awful CO2 they could do their part by ceasing to EXHALE.

That seems reasonable, dontcha think??

Or maybe they want to buy some credits from the rest of us?

What garbage is being thrown in the air?Hello again, El:

You're not living on the same planet as me, are you?

excon

Ex, Ex, Ex.

When your're in a hole the smart thing to do is QUIT diggin'.

After all this time, the scientific community is moving away from the idea of man-made global warming.

Some of them must have actually done some research, unlike Al Gore.

But there are still some who would foolishly destroy our economy on the basis of junk science.

You're not really one of them are you?

1) What garbage is being thrown in the air? Last time I threw a used soda can in the air, it had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the atmosphere. What garbage are you talking about? (Until you define the cause of the problem, you can't define the problem.)Hello again, El:

There are none so blind as they who will not see. When I look at the horizon, I see a brown haze. That is the garbage. I can see it. You can't. Your indoctrination won't let you. Ain't nothing I can do about that.

excon

Hello again, El:

There are none so blind as they who will not see. When I look at the horizon, I see a brown haze. That is the garbage. I can see it. You can't. Your indoctrination won't let you. Ain't nothing I can do about that.

excon

I can't see it, the air is quite clean here.

Hello Steve:

I don't see the sunshine when I go into a closet either... Your point??

You wouldn't be saying, like your rightwinged brother, that there's no air pollution?? You MIGHT be saying that, although I think you said one time that throwing your trash into the air WASN'T a good thing. You even said it makes it hard to breathe.

How could that be when your skies are so clean?

excon

We have already addressed the speciousness of equating the opposition to unproven CO2 linkage to climate change with an approval of polluting the atmosphere with known harmful substances.

They are unrelated and have no correlation .I can be both in favor of reducing the emissions of true pollutants and be opposed to this rush to economic ruin by combatting a problem that no one has proven exists.

Hello Steve:

I don't see the sunshine when I go into a closet either... Your point???

You wouldn't be saying, like your rightwinged brother, that there's no air pollution??? You MIGHT be saying that, although I think you said one time that throwing your trash into the air WASN'T a good thing. You even said it makes it hard to breathe.

How could that be when your skies are so clean??

Easy, air pollution is bad and it does have an adverse affect on breathing. I didn't say we had such air pollution here on the high plains of Texas, with our clear skies, sunshiny days and an average wind speed that blows whatever air pollution we might have to Kansas. We don't have a brown haze, we have clear, blue skies. I guess I could worry about all those chemtrails though, lol.

Hello again, El:

There are none so blind as they who will not see. When I look at the horizon, I see a brown haze. That is the garbage. I can see it. You can't. Your indoctrination won't let you. Ain't nothing I can do about that.

excon

That haze is light reflecting off SOMETHING. At this point you don't know what that something is or whether it is deleterious or beneficial. All you know is that you see something when the sun sets. We must research it and find out what it is.

Furthermore, once we have figured out what that haze is made of and whether it is actually bad for us, we need to further look at the cap & trade bill and determine whether it addresses those ingredients in a meaningful way.

THIS is how scientific research works. You look for the provable facts, not the assumptions.

So... back to lesson 1:

What garbage are you talking about?

You have answered "that brown stuff you see when you look at the horizon." "Smog" is the term most often used.

But what is smog? What is it made of? Is it bad for us?

That is the object of lesson #2.

You're moving along quite nicely, excon. Keep it up.

Elliot

Lesson #2

Smog, more scientifically known as Photochemical Smog, is made up of lots of different chemicals often known as Volatile Organic Compunds or VOCs. The most common VOC in the air is methane, which is actually beneficial to us. Furthermore, most methane is produced naturally from swamplands, rice patties, and cow flatulance. It is also caused by landfills and by burning wood. Short of killing off the natural environment, the world cow population and getting rid of landfills, you aren't going to make any dent in methane levels worldwide.

Other smog ingredients include nitrogen oxides such as nitrous oxide (laughing gas) which is also naturally occurring and beneficial, water vapor, carbon dioxide, troposheric ozone, all of which are beneficial. Smog also includes carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, which are harmful chemicals. However, most of them are also naturally occurring as well, with relatively amounts actually being produced by industry. Nevertheless, we should strive as hard as possible to limit industrial emmissions of these harmful chemicals.

So... now we know what smog is. It is mostly made up of a bunch of benign or beneficial chemicals and compounds, with a few dangerous ones thrown in.

Now, here's the kicker: Does the Cap & Trade bill address the dangerous chemicals in any meaningful manner?

That's lesson #3.

Elliot

Lesson 3:

Does the new Cap & Trade bill address smog?

HR 2454, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, specifically mentions which chemicals and compounds it intends to place limits on. Section 711, paragraph a of the bill (page 699-700) lists the following items:

(1) Carbon dioxide.
(2) Methane.
(3) Nitrous oxide.
(4) Sulfur hexafluoride.
(5) Hydrofluorocarbons emitted from a chemical manufacturing process at an industrial stationary source.
(6) Any perfluorocarbon.
(7) Nitrogen trifluoride.
(8) Any other anthropogenic gas designated as a greenhouse gas by the Administrator under this section.

The first three of these, as we previously discussed, are beneficial chemicals necessary to life on Earth. And short of killing off any animal, fish, insect, and human that breaths, you can't get rid of carbon dioxide, and doing so would in turn kill every plant, fungus, and mold in existence. Ditto for methane and nitrous oxide.

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, colorless, odorless, non-toxic and non-flammable gas. It's harmless. Like helium gas, it can be breathed in and used to alter your voice. It makes the voice deeper, the opposite effect of helium on the vocal chords. It is also not one of the chemicals in smog. It's regulation accomplishes nothing to fix your smog problem.

Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) are a group of chemicals made up of hydrogen, fluorine and carbon. They cause absolutely no harm to the ozone layer. Only chemicals containing bromine and chlorine are known to cause environmental problems with the ozone layer. HFCs are also not part of smog. Regulating them accomplishes nothing to fix your smog problem, and doesn't do anything to protect the environment.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are HFCs in which the hydrogen has been replaced with fluorine. There are many medical and industrial uses for the stuff, and it has been found non harmful to humans. It is used in retinal re-attachment surgery to fill the eye with a liquid to give the eye proper shape. It is used in decompression sickness cases to help flush the body of nitrogen and eliminate the bends. There is experimentation to use oxygenated PFC as a medium for liquid breathing for underwater use (like in the movie The Abyss). It is used as a contrasting medium in diagnostic ultrasound imaging. It is under scrutiny as a possible medium for artificial blood. It is commonly used in cosmetics with the claim that the oxygen molecules dissolved in the PFCs have an anti-aging effect on the skin. It is being used as a replacement for chlorofluorocarbons in refrigeration units and in "clean: fire extinguishers . It is a good electrical insulator and is used in electrical applications. It is used in ski wax to it's ability to shed moisture and reduce friction in wet conditions. In other words, it's safe and environmentally friendly. It is also not included in smog, and it's reduction doesn't do anything to fix your smog problem.

Nitrogen trifluoride happens to be toxic when in gasseous form. However, according to the Journal of Hazardous Materials, Volume 159, Issues 2-3, 30 November 2008, it's effect on the atmoshperic environment is very small because of how little is actually produced and how little is actually emitted into the air as a gas. It is also not an ingredient in smog, and so it's regulation doesn't fix your smog problem.

Here's the final item in that list: "Any other anthropogenic gas designated as a greenhouse gas by the Administrator under this section." That's a catchall phrase meaning "we don't know yet what we want to regulate, but when we do, we have the right to do it, no matter what." It is a blanket license for the government to regulate anything they wish under envirinmental authority. But it doesn't say anything specific. And thus again doesn't solve your smog problem.

Here's what the bill doesn't regulate: carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide are never mentioned. Yet those are key ingredients in smog, and they are the only ones that are truly harmful. But they are completely ignored.

So... now we know what smog is. We know what the regulation says. And we know that the regulation doesn't fix smog and spends its time mostly regulating stuff that isn't harmful and ignores the stuff that is.

THIS BILL DOESN'T FIX THE ENVIRONMENT.

Whether you believe in global warming or not, this bill doesn't truly address global warming, environmental issues or making cleaner air. What it does is regulate what humans produce, whether it is actually harmful or not.

And that is it's true purpose... to regulate human activity.

So in answer to the third question, does this bill fix the problem, the answer is an emphatic NO!!

So why would you support it?

Lesson's over, excon. School's out.

Elliot

So why would you support it?Hello El:

I don't. Never said I did. All I'm saying is there's a problem. Apparently, in your lessons to educate ME, YOU got educated. Indeed, you've ACKNOWLEDGED a problem. That's certainly better than calling it a hoax. So, what's YOUR solution?

excon

PS> I'm not a Democrat. I don't think Democrats are any more capable of passing good legislation than the Republicans were. I think they ALL suck. I'm a strong supporter of term limits. As noted in my recent postings, I don't think the Democratic health care plan will work, and I don't know enough about Cap & Trade to say one way or another, but I have my doubts.

At least Democrats attempt to fix real problems, instead of calling them a HOAX, which is exactly what tom's hero, Republican NY Congressman Peter King did.

Hello El:

I don't. Never said I did. All I'm saying is there's a problem. Apparently, in your lessons to educate ME, YOU got educated. Indeed, you've ACKNOWLEDGED a problem. That's certainly better than calling it a hoax. So, what's YOUR solution?

excon

PS> I'm not a Democrat. I don't think Democrats are any more capable of passing good legislation than the Republicans were. I think they ALL suck. I'm a strong supporter of term limits. As noted in my recent postings, I don't think the Democratic health care plan will work, and I don't know enough about Cap & Trade to say one way or another, but I have my doubts.

At least Democrats attempt to fix real problems, instead of calling them a HOAX, which is exactly what tom's hero, Republican NY Congressman Peter King did.

Actually, if you will look at what I wrote, nothing there seems to identify a global warming problem. It DOES talk about an air pollution problem which I have never denied in any post EVER. But air pollution and global warming are NOT the same, and never have been. Air pollution exists. Global warming doesn't.

In summary:

1) There IS NO GLOBAL WARMING.
2) There is air pollution, which is a problem that I have never denied. (There is also less air pollution than there used to be. But that's a discussion for another day.)
3) The Cr@p on Trade bill doesn't address either the causes of air pollution or the supposed causes of global warming, and is therefore a waste of time and money and a deterrant to free markets designed to deliberately attack capitalism.

End of class.

Elliot

What's my solution? My solution is a free market solution.

If people want cleaner air, let them start businesses who's job it is to develop methods to clean the air. Create an air-scrubbing industry.

Let them develop companies that sell cleaner production technologies to manufacturers. New technologies for production are developed all the time, and people get rich selling these new technologies to mega-corporations looking for a new edge.

Let people come up with efficient clean-air fuels and sell them. If there's enough demand, someone will find a way to fill the demand with some new development.

Let the FREE MARKET fix the problem. You'd be surprised by how well private citizens come up with solutions to problems of pollution. Let them try, and you'll see how well the problem gets fixed in the free markets.

My solution is to leave government out of it, because as you have now seen in the Cap & Trade bill, the government doesn't even begin to address the issue properly. It regulates all the wrong things and ignores the things that REALLY need to be addressed. And the more the government tries, the more they screw it up.

As for global warming, since it doesn't exist, it doesn't need to be solved.

Elliot

You'll love this Elliot. Glenn Nye, freshman Democratic representative from Virginia, has sent two letters to the same constituent taking different positions (http://www.vbdems.org/diary/3062/nye-two-faces-on-aces) on Cap and Trade.


I sent several emails to Rep. Glen Nye urging his support for the ACES climate change bill and more emails expressing my disappointment after he voted against it.

I received two different emails from him in response:

In one email, Nye said I will be pleased to know the bill passed, praising it as "a comprehensive approach that charts a new course toward a clean energy economy" and "will create jobs, help end our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and combat global warming" (without ever mentioning that he voted against it).

In the other email, Nye said I will be pleased to know that he voted against it "because we do not need another tax on American families during this time of economic hardship."

Oops! Nye can't have it both ways. Thelma Drake was consistently wrong, but at least she was consistent.

As Jim Geraghty put it on NRO, "Look, whatever your position is, you can be reassured that Nye agrees with you."

Maybe he's just trying to be true to his campaign slogan, "An independent voice, for a change (http://www.glennnye.com/home/)." Maybe he's just following in Lurch's footsteps, "I actually did vote for Cap and Trade before I voted against it."

Someone brought up this point about cap & trade.

You are in business and someone in govt. gives you an allocation for carbon emissions. Now suppose you want to expand your business. Where will you get the extra carbon credits you need?

Will some larger business sell you some of theirs? Not likely! They may want to expand in the future.

What is to keep large companies from buying up credits in order to stifle competition?

How high will speculators drive the price for available credits? All will be passed on to consumers, of course.

I don't know the answers to these questions.

Do you?

Do those representatives who voted for the bill know? I'll bet they don't!

They didn't even read the thing before they voted for it!

Now doesn't that make you breathe easier?

FYI, to date 31,478 American scientists (http://www.petitionproject.com/), including 9,029 with PhDs, have signed a petition saying they disagree that man-made global warming is threatening the planet.

Also (as I've reported before), "Eight hundred and fifty-four (854) of the 1221 official climate monitoring stations across the country were surveyed and nearly 90% are not properly sited.

Some are located next to buildings and heat-generating electrical equipment. This alone taints the climate record and leads to erroneous warming."

The rest of the column (http://www.klfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=10666569) discusses the incomplete reporting on arctic ice, CO2, natural cycles and computer models. I know, all 32,000 signers are probably IDers and not really interested in an honest, open debate of the evidence.

FYI, to date 31,478 American scientists (http://www.petitionproject.com/), including 9,029 with PhDs, have signed a petition saying they disagree that man-made global warming is threatening the planet.

Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.com/instructions_for_signing_petition.php)

There is no validation at all of signers. Little 14 year old Joey can sign and send in a form.

I know, all 32,000 signers are probably IDers and not really interested in an honest, open debate of the evidence.Hello again, steve:

You say that as if we should believe that only a FEW of them might be IDers. For those who don't know, IDers are scientists who have an agenda, and make their science fit it. You have LOTS of them running around righty circles. Why should I believe that only a very few, if any, of the 32,000 signers are NOT IDers??

As long as you have IDers in your ranks, and as long as you've held up ID as REAL science, you're just not going to be taken seriously on science issues... At least not by ME.

excon

Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.com/instructions_for_signing_petition.php)

There is no validation at all of signers. Little 14 year old Joey can sign and send in a form.


Qualifications of Signers (http://www.petitionproject.com/qualifications_of_signers.php)


Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,153 MS; 2,585 MD and DVM; and 12,711 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,803 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,810 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,818 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,964 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,803)

1. Atmosphere (578)

I) Atmospheric Science (113)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (341)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)

2. Earth (2,240)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)

3. Environment (985)

I) Environmental Engineering (486)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)

Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)

Physics & Aerospace (5,810)

1. Physics (5,223)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,635)

2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,818)

1. Chemistry (3,126)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,692)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,964)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)

2. Biology (1,437)

I) Biology (1,048)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)

3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)

Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

1. General Engineering (9,833)

I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)

2. General Science (269)

Try again, NK. In fact, consider the evidence instead of just trying to discredit the person(s) for a change.

Dude, they only accept the piece of paper if you checked off the fields on it, they don't do any extra background checking. YOU could check off being a Phd in <insert field here> and they would accept it.

Hello again, steve:

You say that as if we should believe that only a FEW of them might be IDers. For those who don't know, IDers are scientists who have an agenda, and make their science fit it. You have LOTS of them running around righty circles. Why should I believe that only a very few, if any, of the 32,000 signers are NOT IDers???

As long as you have IDers in your ranks, and as long as you've held up ID as REAL science, you're just not going to be taken seriously on science issues... At least not by ME.

excon

I get it, because just ONE of these signers mightt be an IDer they're ALL discredited. Let's apply that to all situations now, OK? One Democrat is corrupt so they're ALL corrupt. One black is a lazy thug so they're ALL lazy thugs. All Mexicans are janitors or pea-pickers, all whites are racist, all Jews are greedy, Muslims are terrorists and left handed people are gay. So basically in your view no one is worth a damn... except you of course and those who think like you when they think like you. Am I right?

You might just consider that there's probably no doctorate in Intelligent Design. They actually had to complete the courses to get their degrees in most cases don't you think?

And it is very easy to independently verify the credentials.

I get it, because just ONE of these signers mightt be an IDer they're ALL discredited.
No, the petition is discredited because they might not even be real people. The rest of your rant is awkward to read.

IDers are scientists who have an agenda, and make their science fit it.

All the science that ID uses is legitimate science. That is not my problem with them. They do a good job at creating a valid objection to the theories of evolution . But their alternative explanation is not science.

Dude, they only accept the piece of paper if you checked off the fields on it, they don't do any extra background checking. YOU could check off being a Phd in <insert field here> and they would accept it.

Dude, you're awfully naïve sometimes. Or is this just some conspiracy? This group is willing to subject themselves and the legitimate scientists that signed to open ridicule by not performing some sort of validation? How the hell do you know they don't do any checks?

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh. You got me wrong. If only ONE of the 32,000 is an IDer, then it doesn't change anything. If 100 were, that wouldn't change anything either... But, if a 1,000 were, I'd raise my eyebrows. If 5,000 were, little hairs on the back of my neck would begin to stand up and shout at me.

I tell you what would have solved it for for me. If they would have included an ID category on the petition, then, I could have drawn my own conclusions.

I wonder WHY they left ID off, anyway. Doesn't someone think God is responsible for global warming? As a "valid" field of scientific study, you'd think it WOULD be included on that list.

excon

Ok let's pretend they are all the people named. There are literally tens of millions of Americans with BS (or higher) science degrees. 32, 000 isn't a lot is it? That about 0.1&#37;.

Anyway, read more about the sordid past of the Oregon petition: debunking / Oregon Petition (http://debunking.pbworks.com/Oregon-Petition)

Hello again, steve:

You say that as if we should believe that only a FEW of them might be IDers. For those who don't know, IDers are scientists who have an agenda, and make their science fit it. You have LOTS of them running around righty circles. Why should I believe that only a very few, if any, of the 32,000 signers are NOT IDers???

As long as you have IDers in your ranks, and as long as you've held up ID as REAL science, you're just not going to be taken seriously on science issues... At least not by ME.

excon

So you are saying that the scientists who are global warming deniers or global warming skeptics all have political agendas, but none of the scientists who are global warming proponents are politically motivated?

You will take the word of scientists on the left because they are pure and white as the driven snow, but you will reject scientists on the left because they are politically motivated.

Can you name any scientists who are global warming skeptics who have a political motivation? Or are you just taking that as gospel, just like everything else about global warming?

How about actually looking at the science itself instead of the people. Naw... that's too hard for you. You'll just parrot the scripture of global warming without actually understanding any of it.

Like I said, excon. You're a global warming Chassid.

Elliot

No, the petition is discredited because they might not even be real people.

You, as an anonymous 'expert' raise that issue here? LOL.

I'm no expert. Never said I was. You say I'm an expert.

You will take the word of scientists on the left because they are pure and white as the driven snow, but you will reject scientists on the left because they are politically motivated.Hello again, El:

Let me say it again. Maybe I can be CLEARER! I reject ANY science based on politics... ID is one of those "science's". ID "scientists" are rightwingers. They are religionists before they are scientists. They have NO credibility. Those who support them, have NO credibility. YOU are one of them.

As long as your ranks are filled with charlatan IDers, you WILL NOT BE BELIEVED. If you wish to classify my disbelief as sipping the koolaid, so be it.

excon

I'm no expert. Never said I was. You say I'm an expert.

Oh OK, anonymous 'contributor.' Now that we have that settled...

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming)

Climate change: The Deniers (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71)

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html)

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7)

Update: Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report (http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3)

I'm sure there are more, discredit them all. And have any of you stopped to think just who it is that's actually selling us this crap? The Goracle, the media, the G-8 leaders, scientists every one I'm sure.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0709/071309obamabarakdunce.jpg

I'm sure there are scientists that have different findings, I don't dispute that. I don't know who this Goracle person is.

I'm sure there are scientists that have different findings, I don't dispute that. I don't know who this Goracle person is.

Sure you do, he's the guy running around Australia (http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-07-13-voa8.cfm) telling them "the planet has a "fever" caused by climate change." He's always running around somewhere trying to impose his will on other countries.

He must be a pretty powerful guy if his will can change the direction a whole country is taking. I'll look into him.

Hello again, El:

Lemme say it again. Maybe I can be CLEARER! I reject ANY science based on politics.... ID is one of those "science's". ID "scientists" are rightwingers. They are religionists before they are scientists. They have NO credibility. Those who support them, have NO credibility. YOU are one of them.

As long as your ranks are filled with charlatan IDers, you WILL NOT BE BELIEVED. If you wish to classify my disbelief as sipping the koolaid, so be it.

excon

Global warming is a science PURELY based on politics. ALL of its proponents are anti-capitalism. Greenpeace is a political movement, not a scientific one. And it's goal is the elimination of industry. Therefore, the entire science of global warming is based purely on politics and has no scientific validity because the proponents are soicialists before they are scientists. They have no credibility. They are nothing but charlatans. As long as your ranks are filled with charlatan socialists, you will not be believed.

Same logic. Same conclusion. Global warming is a farce.

Difference is, I have actual science to back that position up.

Elliot

Bottom line:

The envirowhackos are willing to severely raise prices on everything we need AND flush the toilet that our economy is already in.

All because of unproven ideas about warming that isn't even happening.

That really makes sense, doesn't it?

Good news, India has rebuffed (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS-India-India-will-not-take-on-emission-cut-targets-Jairam-tells-Hillary/articleshow/4796258.cms) Hillary on her "I'm back and I'm blaming America again Tour."

Hillary: "We acknowledge now with President Obama that we have made mistakes (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g3lGTbp2KLrD4mzkA_ebmlLJFg7wD99GR47G1) in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change," she said. "We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same mistakes."

Obama's Commerce Secretary got in on the act in saying Americans need to pay for Chinese emissions.

Commerce Secretary Locke: “It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSPEK312106), then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that,” Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai.

When pressed Commerce did offer an update with some nonsense about "fair trade" and a "level playing field" but with this administration one has to think that was "just words."

http://www.freedomdogs.com/images/fd/ChiefGraphics/bo.blame.america.logo.5.png
Logo courtesy Freedom Dogs (http://www.freedomdogs.com/)