Serendipity: Sweeping Progress on Climate Change

» Neil Steadman on 07.05.09 @ 07:16 AM

This bill is a sad excuse for competent action. There is no scientific consensus that global warming is man-caused. The cap and trade bill was not read by members of Congress, plus Nancy P. added 300 pages at 3:00 AM that also were not read. Yet, Congress still went ahead and voted on it without knowing its contents. Our elected officials did not do their job.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Realist on 07.05.09 @ 09:08 AM

This bill is the largest tax in American history wrapped in a green package. Somehow Obama’s got to fund his takeover of health care and this is a big part of it. This bill will not change anything, except our energy bills. It puts a further burden on American jobs because foreigners don’t have to pay this tax. Watch more American jobs go overseas. Global warming has never been proven and the EPA, forced by Obama, has silenced anyone that disagrees with them.

Just more gestapo tactics by the Obama Administration. Any by the way, Obama is not black, he is “mixed race”, just like Tiger Woods.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 07.05.09 @ 12:28 PM

There is a large and growing concensus among scientists that ‘global warming’ is not the issue the alarmists would have us believe, but the alarmists have managed to enlist the political establishment in yet more junk science.  Remember the asbestos removal craze?  Subsequently shown to release dramatically more asbestos into the atmosphere than was ever released during original installation and use. Power line radiation as a cancer agent?  Thoroughly debunked after the loss of millions in real estate value.  Silicone breast implants as the cause of a variety of mysterious ailments?  Completely untrue and disproven by real science.  Cell towers as a radiation risk to ‘our children (always the heartstring tugger, that one)?  Not according to studies by the American Cancer Society.  The last thing we need is politicians thinking they are scientifically literate - very few are.  And scientific education of our population has become so dismal that people tend to believe whatever junk science their favorite politician (e.g. Al Gore, self-professed ‘inventor of the Internet’) throws at them.  Let’s go VERY slowly before committing billions and trillions of dollars to what may not be an actual problem.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» desertchik on 07.05.09 @ 02:08 PM

The malpractice of our congress in passing an unread, unfinished and sweeping tax bill is truly stunning.  Obama (and why does the left continually bring up race?) and his crew are cramming legislation down our throats with no discussion, testimony and/or scientific proof.  In fact, studies proving the opposite are hushed and hidden.  If sensible Americans don’t stand up and stop all this, our society will be changed for one or two generations at the least.  Czars have been named and do not have to answer to Congress or we the people.  Where does it say in the Constitution that the Federal government has the right to take my money and give it to someone else so he can buy a new car??

Wake up America…think!  And ACT NOW!!!!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Trekking Left on 07.05.09 @ 02:26 PM

Neil Steadman says, “There is no scientific consensus that global warming is man-caused.”

Realist says, “Global warming has never been proven…”

John Locke says, “There is a large and growing concensus among scientists that ‘global warming’ is not the issue the alarmists would have us believe…”

First of all, let’s be perfectly clear: These statements are utterly, completely, and one hundred percent FALSE!  No matter how many times I hear this kind of stuff, I am still flabbergasted that you people keep saying it.  Just because you bury your head in the sand and put your fingers in your ears, does not mean you can just make stuff up without any evidence whatsoever.  The earth revolves around the sun, evolution is not a theory, and global warming is REAL!

Second of all, by continuously making up this crazy claim that the scientific community denies global warming, you are hindering our ability to take action and do something about it.  You know, mother nature isn’t going to spare you the effects of climate change just because you don’t believe in it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» b_reynaldo on 07.05.09 @ 06:41 PM

The religious fanaticism of “climate change” is being increasingly rejected by highly-regarded scientists. 

From

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

“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.)”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Lock on 07.05.09 @ 07:04 PM

Trekking Left: you are in a state of complete denial.  While there are certainly scientists who believe that global warming is real, there are others, recently mentioned in the NY Times and LA Times and Newsweek (none a bastion of reactionary thinking), who believe the opposite.  So stop with the ALL CAPS TOTALLY FALSE belligerance.  It may be you with your head in the sand, approving of governmental action that could very well be harmful.  There is nothing so dangerous as a true believer - just look at Al Qaeda for an example.  Let the scientists hammer it out, not the politicians. This is an extremely complex issue, and one that, I suspect, we do not yet have the answers to.  BTW, don’t forget that barely 30 years ago the scientists and some politicians were alarming us all about “global cooling”...

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Tom on 07.05.09 @ 07:41 PM

Temp increases happen first, CO2 inc next.  Bad science, bad economics bad technological assessment.  Wind doesn’t replace coal

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Patrick on 07.06.09 @ 09:43 AM

Talk about hot air. Change the proportions of a critical element in a closed system and you will generate change. That’s the facts of climate change. Burning stuff in the volumes successful society does has accomplished this. Changing how we generate energy is one thing we can control.
Putting aside climate, energy costs are going up whether or not this bill is made law. Check the pump this month? The increase in global living standards cannot be supplied by fossil fuels, by the industry’s own estimates, even if we enact and execute huge incentives for efficiency on top of the price increases that will make 08 gas prices seem calm.
Many contributors here are focused on big government and tax issues, far more than the realities of the science data. I would suggest they look at this as a significant step away from oil (read funding the other side of the war on terror) and towards economic leadership in the 21st century. The country that solves the clean sustainable coal price generation problem gets all of China’s pent up dollars. Don’t you want that to be the USA?
Stop thinking like 20th century conservatives and start thinking private sector innovation and leadership.
Have just finished three year project on these issues. See the trailer at http://www.prooforpropaganda.com

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Rami Courtney on 07.07.09 @ 06:48 PM

Neil Steadman says, “There is no scientific consensus that global warming is man-caused.”

Realist says, “Global warming has never been proven…”

John Locke says, “There is a large and growing concensus among scientists that ‘global warming’ is not the issue the alarmists would have us believe…”

What pseudo-science are they reading?  The World According to Rush Limbaugh?
I challenge them to read Thomas Friedman’s Hot, Flat and Crowded and see if, after reading that book, they can still make such outrageous claims with a straight face.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» John Locke on 07.08.09 @ 06:25 PM

AN50 is right on, again.  Thomas Friedman is certainlly entitled to publish his views, but neither he nor Rush Limbaugh are scientists, they are politicial commentators, like Al (I Invented the Internet) Gore and Trekking Left.  There is still a debate among credible, credentialled scientists.  Try to grow beyond religious, excuse me, global warming, fanaticism.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» to "Realist" from the original Realist on 07.09.09 @ 06:24 AM

While thankfully I agree with what you said, please find an original screen name…

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» AN50 on 07.11.09 @ 05:01 PM

No one ever said there was no AGW. The debate is how much and is it significant. The corollary to that is can we do anything about it. The debate is not over whether there is or is not GW but AGW. So much of this stupid argument is over semantics. The debate is also whether CO2 is a significant contributor to GW as a GHG. Again you have a whole lot of scientist come out and say GW is happening. Yes it is, for 8000 years now. But many of these same scientists are saying CO2 has not been confirmed as the “driver” and that anthropogenic sources are insignificant as a contributor. There is also a whole lot of debate that needs to happen on what are triggers to warming and cooling, anthropogenic or otherwise, because we can’t seem to make up our mind on which way the climate might head next.
As for higher fuel prices being a good spark for technological innovation, yes but on whose back. It really pisses me off that you white, wealthy, limo liberals always eager to show your phony shallow compassion, love to dump the costs on the backs of those least able to afford it. It must bother you elitist to no end to see the poorest among us able to drive a car as big as yours. Higher energy costs hurt the poor not just here but globally. The greatest vehicle for bringing the worlds poor up to a higher living standard is cheap plentiful energy. The most successful delivery of that benefit has been America’s free market capitalist system. You idiots in your rush to support some sideshow phony (Al Gore) have concocted a monstrously regressive tax on the worlds poor and you are all too politically invested to see the damage you are creating.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.