Blogs and Stories
Republicans vs. the Environment
Jacquelyn Martin / AP Photo
On Friday, when Al Gore and Newt Gingrich faced off with competing testimonies on a sweeping climate-change bill, Republicans faced a choice: embrace the future, or become the party of the 19th century.
On Friday, with a titanic battle-of-the-testimonies between Al Gore and Newt Gingrich, Congress closed out the first week of its historic push toward the passage of global-warming legislation. Yes, there have been climate bills and climate votes before; and there was the Kyoto Treaty, spiked by the Senate in 1997. But this time, Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress are closing in on a law that finally sets a price on carbon-dioxide emissions and begins to ratchet them down.
Meanwhile, the GOP faces a make-or-break moment in its rueful history with climate change, and at least so far, continues to act as the party of the 19th century.
Republicans like Boehner are dramatically stuck in the past—by which I mean, the pre-1859 past.
A bit about the stakes this time: The matter is urgent, and not just because of the vulnerability of the climate system. If Congress doesn't act, there's the growing likelihood that Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, compelled by the Supreme Court, might move to fill the gap, regulating carbon dioxide even in the absence of a new law. Meanwhile, at year’s end U.S. negotiators will travel to a United Nations meeting in Copenhagen to hammer out the successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Without domestic progress on climate change that they can point to, our envoys will be hamstrung, and probably unable to bring on board key developing nations like India and China, which want to see the U.S. take the plunge on regulating greenhouse gases before they follow course.
Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey's (D-MA) draft American Clean Energy and Security Act is Congress’s focal point. A recent analysis by the EPA finds that, contrary to absurd claims that the bill will usher in economic calamity, such "cap and trade" legislation could actually leave average energy consumers better off in the long run—provided that the revenue created through the auctioning of emissions permits under the act gets returned to citizens in the form of rebate checks or a tax cut (an increasingly popular proposal).
The bill will presumably pass the Democratic House of Representatives with ease—a vote is expected by Memorial Day. But then comes the Senate, where the Democrats don’t have a filibuster-proof majority and Republicans could make all sorts of trouble.
For Republicans, who still can't even agree that global warming is real and human-caused, this is a telltale moment. The House GOP minority leader, John Boehner, appeared Sunday on ABC News's This Week with George Stephanopoulos and confusedly suggested that carbon dioxide is a "carcinogen," while also appearing to confound two separate greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide and methane. Boehner also mocked the idea that carbon-dioxide emissions are even something to worry about—calling it "almost comical"—and offered no clear plan for how his party would propose to deal with them.
Republicans like Boehner are dramatically stuck in the past—by which I mean, the pre-1859 past. After all, 1859 is the year that the Irish scientist John Tyndall correctly explained how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere "traps" heat radiation, an inescapable matter of physics that, even today, Boehner and his ilk seems unwilling to simply and plainly acknowledge.
In political terms, we can expect much GOP misinformation about climate science—witness the infamously wrong arguments made on this front by conservative pundit George Will a few weeks back. On climate economics, too, such as exaggerating the Waxman-Markey bill's upfront costs, while downplaying or ignoring its long-term benefits. But if the GOP continues to take an extreme position, it will cede decision-making authority to a small group of moderate Republicans (like Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins) and industrial-state Democrats in the Senate. They, alone, will likely determine whether or not 2009 climate legislation can survive an inevitable filibuster. And they'll surely extract their concessions.
For instance, the Waxman-Markey climate bill currently leaves unresolved the wonky but all-important question of how the permits to emit carbon dioxide will be allocated under a new cap-and-trade regime. A 100 percent auction of these permits would generate the most revenue for renewable-energy investment, and for the return of dividends or tax breaks to the public. A free giveaway of permits to polluters, in contrast, would make industry very happy, and prompt less complaining about the economic costs of complying with the new law. Somewhere between a 100 percent and 0 percent auction is surely where negotiations will end up—so expect permit allocation to become a key bargaining chip as this law advances through Congress.
It’s not surprising that there’s still resistance to such legislation, despite the irrefutable science and even the long-term economic benefits. However, we should have acted on global warming in the early 1990s, and at this point, delay is no longer an option. Republicans should take heed—global warming legislation is coming, and it won’t be an economic calamity; in fact, it’s an inevitable step toward a better American energy future. They can join this critical project, or be remembered as those who wouldn’t.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
Banjo1
According to the MSM, the Republicans are finished. I'm glad the left is still permitting elections in this country so the voters can demur as soon as they catch on. But I wouldn't give odds on how much longer they allow this interference in their Soviet-style planning.
hardrain
You think Obama and Congressional Dems are like Soviet Russians? Maybe you should get out the house more and actually meet someone who has had to live through fascism-cuz Communist Russia this country ain't.
cudmaster
I have this friend, who happens to have escaped from Cuba.
He said to me "The only thing different between the USA and Cuba, is here the people have cars and cell phones."
pkali77
Go to a real communist country like N.Korea or China, and see what the lack of environmental policies can do to a nation. The air is so thick with nasty chemicals, the rivers are scary things, even the Russians got into the environmental game and saved Lake Bakail, you should look at a before and after picture. Climate change is real and environmental policies have done real nice things.
Dylan111
I agree. I was in China in 2007, and while it was a very beautiful country in many ways, I did not see a blue sky for almost three weeks. Finally, during our last few days in China, when we in Hong Kong (where there is very little heavy industry), we saw the sun again. \
Our Chinese guide was very honest, admitting that the environment had not been a top priority in the rush to improve the economy, but that now everyone was worried about the 2008 Olympics and how bad the pollution might be for the athletes. I, for one, am very glad we finally have an administration that actually believes that we face very serious environmental problems. That is the first step to doing something about them.
I am also quite sure that we will never convince people like Banjo1 that Obama and the Democrats are not evil incarnate sent here by the devil to ruin America. They will continue to believe what makes them happy,
tiotom77
Do you believe the "cap and trade" tax will cut back on manufacturing. The law of "supply and demand" says that they will produce as much as people need. If needs go, up then production goes up. The tax will go up accordingly. Of course, Companies won't absorb the tax, they'll pass it on to consumers in higher prices So "cap and trade" is a higher tax for all consumers
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jdavxcDeaconDrJones
Is this guy for real? I can't honestly believe there are people this naive in the goddamn world anymore. Sir, where the hell were you the last eight years as your pals wiped thier butts with constitution, tortured and disappeared innocents, declared open ended war on anybody they could, and failed to thwart the 911 attacks? You sir are a buffoon and your party is a joke.
stormystew
Im sorry Deacon ( Now that is funny )..I didn't realize we were on "Youtube"..Ya know where the little kids cannot make a point without using every cuss word that is imaginable...And some not... You sir are the buffoon..Grow up then make your point.
theblender
OMFG! Now that's a retort! ditto DeaconDr...ditto
stormystew
I'm sorry I actually understood what you were trying to say, also may I add these people leaving you their years of intense (Bull) no nothing of the collapse of a society as a whole and the fact that it does actually happen and most time because of intense liberalism to the point where a new leader arrives on the scene and runs them over like a bulldozer, ( See Roman Empire )
Stromko
The administration hasn't blamed anybody for anything, they didn't need to. We all know who is responsible for the mess we're in domestically and abroad.
Seriously who thinks the Roman empire fell because of liberalism? There was no such thing in the Roman empire -- the gap between rich and poor was massive and only continued to grow over the course of its history, until corruption and lack of widespread education saw social and military services crumble. Then they got raped by Barbarians. That's it in a nutshell, and it doesn't sound like liberalism to me.
AndreainNY
I have a friend whose in-laws escaped from Cuba. They are horrified at how much Obama sounds like Castro.
Obama is freaking out a lot of Americans. His supporters blame the Republicans (of course) for this, but, in fact, it's a natural byproduct of people getting to know him.
SlimSoldier
I have a feeling you're either omitting or are just downright unaware of the historical ties between Cuban exhiles and Republican administrations in this country and abroad.....I'm sure that your friend whose "in laws" escaped from Cuba after the communists took over has a favorable opinion of ANY Democratic administration...given the history there....Right?
Butteoid
Republicans have, since Carter left office, allowed energy policy to be set by coal firms, and the oil companies and their OPEC/al Qaida masters.
That's great for Exxon and the Saudi royals; bad for the American people.
When you stick your head in the sand, reality bites you in the ass -- but then the GOP seems increasingly to be living these days in a reality of their own making.
When Moore's law kicks in on the production of photovoltaic cells, the game's over. I just hope we do it before the Chinese.
tiotom77
Do you believe "cap and trade" will reduce greenhouse gasses. Manufacturers will produce as much as needed to meet consumer demand. As demand goes up, production goes up..and "cap and trade" goes up. The problem is, the higher cap and trade won't be paid by the company. The higher fees will be passed on to the consumers, be it utilities, fuel, clothes, electronics.....Anyone who uses anything will pay more.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jdavxcxbainx
Let us say for a moment that global warming is not real. It is still unhealthy to put gigatons of carbon dioxide and other chemicals into the air. So what are we fighting about?
And the Republicans are done. You know how all your neighbors are talking about taking back the government? Well we on the other side are talking about how important it is to never let that happen.
tiotom77
At first it was called pollution..then ozone depletion..then global warming..then climate change.. I hope environmentalist can find a solution as good as they can re-name the problem.
jsisbest
seriously tiotom77? you don't know the difference between pollution, ozone depletion and global warming/climate change? they are three different issues. why don't you start your research at wikipedia. there's been a lot learned about the environment in the last, say, 40 years. maybe you should get caught up before you comment, you're obviously completely in the dark when it comes to environmental science.
tiotom77
I haven't heard about ozone depletion since the early 1990s, when there was a hole over the north pole that was melting the artic. But it's not mentioned today. why? because now it's global warming.
rpopstar
tiotom77 writes: "I haven't heard about ozone depletion since the early 1990s..."
From Nasa.gov:
The Antarctic ozone hole reached its annual maximum on Sept. 12, 2008, stretching over 27 million square kilometers, or 10.5 million square miles. The area of the ozone hole is calculated as an average of the daily areas for Sept. 21-30 from observations from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on NASA's Aura satellite.
This is considered a "moderately large" ozone hole, according to NASA atmospheric scientist, Paul Newman. And while this year's ozone hole is the fifth largest on record, the amount of ozone depleting substances have decreased about 3.8% from peak levels in 2000. The largest ozone hole ever recorded occurred in 2006, at a size of 10.6 million square miles.
tiotom77
To rpopstar;
I appreciate your comment about ozone...I got lost in all the chatter!
theblender
well said jsisbest!
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jdavxcmstracka
xbainx:Maybe you should read a bit and learn about CO2. It is not a pollutant. It exists naturally in our atmosphere and all life depends on the gas, in one way or another. I suggest you pick up a copy of "A Primer on CO2 and Climate" by Howard C. Hayden. In this small but informative writing you will learn that CO2 levels during the Jurassic Period (i.e., dinosaurs) were 10 times higher than today. Somehow this planet managed to survive - and most of the life forms on it did, too. You'll also find that the planet hasn't warmed at all in the last nine years, despite steadily increasing CO2 concentrations. Al Gore said that temperatures would follow CO2 increases and that simply hasn't happened. Arm yourself with facts, not the echos of whacked out, bitter politicians like like Gore.
xbainx
Yes moron, I know what carbon is. I can put salt on my food, but too much salt will kill me. I can drink lots of beer but too much will kill me. I can breath out carbon dioxide, but too much and the plants can't process it all, and it builds up and it kills me. Hopefully you and any offspring first.
theblender
ok, you can tell us...IS this Michelle Bachmann?
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jdavxcThis user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jdavxcreckless
"This week, Congress begins [AN] historic push toward the passage of global-warming legislation-" Jesus, man. Get an editor.
lordastral
Yes, no doubt the editor followed the same rules of standard written english as the rest of us. You use "a" when the "h" is pronounced, and you use "an" when the "h" is silent. When complaining about the editorial quality of a column, you should first be sure of the rule of English you are complaining about. You can read a discussion of this here:
http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/40038-when-do-you-use-befo re-h.html
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jdavxcDreddBlog
One reason is so they can keep the senate dem lead to 58 ...
Coleman v Franken to be heard in June ...
tiotom77
The environmentalists are very narrow in their solution. solar & wind. I lived in Denver in the 1960s-70s and there was a govt operation called the SERI (Solar Energy Research Institute). This place was huge. They studied and found that to make make solar viable, we need to find a way to store it. 50 years later and we still don't have a real solution.
hardrain
1. Not all who support change to energy policies are environmentalists-most are ordinary people with a reasonable understanding that you don't "shit where you eat".
2. The solution is not just solar and wind-its conservation, for some nuclear, for some developing ACTUAL clean coal tech, hydrogen, ethanol made from the switchgrass and cornhusks, technology that could "scrub out"
3. 50 years later with almost NO govt. support, and incredibly powerful fossil fuel companies that have been known to undermine progress.
4. What misplaced emotional need are you trying to fill by your ill-educated mocking?
tiotom77
Obama doesn't mention Nuclear, clean coal, bio-fuels. we already use ethanol. I agree we must diversify, you're right!
As far as the SERI, Senator Bennet (D-CO) visited the institute just this week. So they are still trying.
newyorkcity
Yeah... that's because misguided (stupid) pseudo-intellectuals like yourself vote anyone out of office that dares support funding for the research.
matarozzo
Anyone from the Greater Cincinnati area will recognize John Boehner as one way over his head. A true political lighweight who probably can't find his way to the restroom without a native guide. Boehner's mind is narrow, parochial. He has over-achieved.
Ritarita
And
An infamous
Chainsmoker.
Notice
His eyes always
Darting around
As he wets his lips
And looks for
The exits.
He's also a heavy
Tanning addict.
Strange
Combo.
flyoverland
The only danger from hot air is from dopes like this. The headline should read: Republicans against taxing each househole $3800 a year. We are about to forfeit our standard of living for junk science that has not been proved, only accepted by the politically correct and cowed scientific community. It has not been reported that Obama and Waxman prohibited the GOP's first choice to rebut Gore, Lord Moncton, who was told upon landing in Washington he would not be permitted to bring real facts to the hearings. Its a sham. A mockery of a sham. Gore is getting rich from your stupidiy. This isn't about global warming. It is about taking control of every facet of your lives and of course taking your money. Lemmings like this writer should get the facts before they lose their freedom.
KonradProduct
"take control of your lives" - oh, like the "war" based on 100% false intelligence? or, the DubYa "tax cuts," benefitting only the top 1%? the stem cell fiasco? the torture memos? the wire tapping of Americans? ... there are so many examples from the past eight years of how republicunt got it wrong & abused power and were/are, basically, facists, you have no leg to stand on.
Here's something new for you to learn today, flyoverland. the word progressive means: "WORKING TOWARDS A RESOLUTION."
It doesn't mean, as republicunts such as yourself constantly, insanely insist, backpedaling into some elysian past that never existed and cannot be recreated. Even Disneyland's Frontierland has been updated ...
So here's a solution that will allow you to go out in a blaze of self-sacrifice for your beloved plain states: get with the program or call your doctor and arrange a seventh decade cranial abortion: surely, your shriveled gray matter could serve a better use - fertilizer? - than its current activity i.e., producing more of this insult sling, degrading bullshit.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jdavxcrpopstar
Industries Buried Internal Findings --Climate Wording Cut From Public Report
Juliet Eilperin -Washington Post Staff Writer- April 25, 2009
A group funded by fossil-fuel-dependent companies that argued for years that human-generated greenhouse gases were not driving global warming was advised by its own scientists that this was the case, according to documents submitted as part of an ongoing lawsuit between auto manufacturers and states seeking to regulate vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions.
The Global Climate Coalition, a group of representatives of the oil, auto and coal industries, spent years telling the public that the link between human activity and climate change was too uncertain to justify U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 treaty aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions. In 1995, however, a "primer" on the issue produced by the organization's own scientific experts concluded that "the scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied."
This language was deleted from the primer when the group released it to the public.
rpopstar
flyoverland wrote " The headline should read: Republicans against taxing each househole [sic] $3800 a year.
==================
*ahem*
In speeches, interviews, and press releases, Republicans have repeatedly claimed that a cap and trade system would raise energy prices an average of $3,100 per household - a figure they got by doing some additional calculations off an MIT analysis.
MIT's John Reilly, one of the authors of the study, slammed their use of his estimates earlier this month.
"It's just wrong," he told Politifact in an interview. "It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin."
Reilly put the correct estimate at about $340, saying his analysis assumed that at least some of the revenue would be returned to consumers to offset their rates.
An analysis by The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis found that a cap and trade system could generate as much as $1.9 trillion in tax revenue over eight years: $2,000 per household.
CBO senior adviser Terry Dinan said that a 15 percent cut in carbon dioxide admissions could cost the average household roughly $1,600, ranging from about $700 in costs for the lowest-income households to about $2,200 for high-income taxpayers.
tiotom77
cap and trade revenues don't go to households, it goes to the government, unless a tax rebate would be available (possible?). Under cap and trade, fees on all things manufactured will be raised. The higher the fees... the higher the cost to manufacture. Will the company absorb those higher fees? NO! They will pass them on to the consumer. So anything made in a factory (even solar panels and wind turbines) will cost more.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jdavxcShaman
I do not disagree that the Republicans have lost their way, on a number of issues. However, having read the Executive Summary of the WM bill my head is spinning. I am not sure how anyone can reach any conclusion just yet about the effects of the bill, let alone be snarky to those who are fearful that it could hurt our economy. Too many unknowns at this time and the basic assumption that most of the money is return to taxpayers is not credible given our deficits. The biggest offsets are nuclear energy and energy reduction, both of which are problematical. Chris, you may be right, but your condenscending holier than thou attitude in the face of so many unknowns does not serve you well
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jdavxccitivas
Hyperbole about the "end of Republicans" aside and whether you like Gore or not being irrelevant, it does seem true that some important Republican Congressional leaders do seem to be getting some pretty bad advise by allowing themselves to look foolish on the issue of climate change. Their staffs don't seem to be current on the issue and aren't doing their bosses any favors allowing them to still take public positions that are now based on thoroughly discredited "scientific" positions. Five, maybe even three years ago they could get away with taking the position that the "scientific community is divided" on the issue of whether climate change is a major problem or whether "man made conditions are contributing to it." Now that position is laughable. Even major industry-baked groups that have always been funded by those with an interest in downplaying the problem and previously were the basis for many of those statements about the ambiguity of the issue have admitted that there is "scientific consensus" on the "problem of climate change" and that man-made conditions are a serious contributing factor. At this point the tiny minority of scientists who still challenge this are generally viewed either as quacks, paid mouthpieces for industry or in a few cases just stubborn about not admitting they misspoke before when they earlier sided with industry. There is clear scientific community consensus on this issue, certainly on par with the level on consent about virtually any major scientific issue - there is never perfect consensus on anything of course.
For industry, which realizes this, the debate and "talking points" has shifted from denying climate change and global warming to trying to downplay the relevance of any man-made conditions in meaningfully contributing to it. This too is a smokescreen to delay inevitable actions to curtail the worst contributing forces against it. While it is true that there are natural cycles of climate change, the credible scientific community has clearly demonstrates that man-made activity is accelerating it in excess of any available evidence of previous natural cycles. And in any event that debate is superfluous and distracting anyway since the regardless of the cause, the consequences are almost universally accepted to be catastrophic over time unless more action is taken to compensate for it. In other words, let's assume for the sake of fantasy that man has had almost nothing to do with climate change. So what, does that mean we sit around and do nothing as we watch the "natural cycle" lead to massive global havoc and destruction? Or as any good manager or leader would say, can we stop worrying about blame and start focusing on what to do about it?
mstracka
"...massive global havoc and destruction"?
Are you kidding me? Stop listening to Fat Albert and learn the real truth.
citivas
I feel sorry for you. Expressing such ignorance in public is like walking around with a kick me sign on your back and not realizing it.
The Earth is round. It revolves around the Sun and not the other way around. And man-made accleration of climate change is starting to have dramatic consequences over time (over a long time, not like the Hollywood version). That is the "real truth." If you're interested in the truth you need to start questioning where you look for your definition of it.
philipjames
who is this idiot? embracing Gore's widely discredited information is looking forward and admitting that Gingrich's information is correct is antiquated?
with idiots like Mooney it is easy to see why a dolt like Obama and the rest of the lying crowd are running the show...
remember Diana and that lemming like crowd behaviour? beautifying someone who was actually very ordinary? worshipping piles of flowers?
well, that is what we have here.
Gore is smart... he's figured it out and is raking in the bucks as fast as he can... first with all the global warming and blaming humans for it.... made millions off of that (ever hear of him donating most of it to the cause? duh...no) and now he has teamed up with an ex Goldman Sachs honcho to invest in all these "green" companies including trading carbon credits....
that is the reality... not this idiots imaginary reality
LadyMaya
Calling Obama a "dolt" just shows how irrational you are and enables us to not pay any attention to your post. What is your CV?
SpeakEnglish
Plenty of socialist thinkers have excellent CVs. Their thinking is just wrong.
rpopstar
The Hill's Eric Zimmermann has a transcript of an exchange between the former vice president Al Gore and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R) of Tennessee.
BLACKBURN: I've got an article from October 8th, the New York Times Magazine about a firm called Kleiner Perkins. A capital firm called Kleiner Perkins. Are you aware of that company?
GORE: (LAUGHS) Well yes, I'm a partner at Kleiner Perkins.
BLACKBURN: So you're a partner at Kleiner Perkins. OK. Now they have invested about a billion dollars in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap and trade legislation. So is the legislation that we're discussing here today, is that something you are going to personally benefit from?
GORE: I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us. And I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a non-profit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness about why we have to take on this challenge. And Congresswoman, if you're, if you believe the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me.
BLACKBURN: I'm not making accusations. I'm asking questions that have been asked of me. And individuals, constituents that were seeking a point of clarity.
GORE: I understand exactly what you're doing, Congresswoman. Everybody here does.
Undeterred, Blackburn pressed on, asking whether Gore would commit to not making any profit on his activism, and promising to direct activism-related income to a non-profit.
Gore patiently explained, "Every penny that I have made has gone to it. Every penny from the movie, from the book, from any investments in renewable energy. I've been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you think there's something wrong with being active in business in this country?"
tiotom77
Gore is exploiting the Global warming theory and scaring our kids about it..He says in a few years, Florida will be covered with water. Has he been to the everglades lately? Most of it is below sea level and it's all dried up. The need the water
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jdavxcSpeakEnglish
Stuck in the past---and that's a bad thing? Let's review: free speech is condemned by the current President, 40% of all Americans don't even work and those who do are "allowed" to keep less and less of their own money, and Free Enterpise is being replaced with Socialism. Unfortunately, there simply isn't enough room here to list all the declines in American culture and we're supposed to embrace the loss of a two party political system too? Voting begins anew in 2012. We needed a Carter to get a Reagan and we needed an Obama to get a Romney or someone else who actually knows what they're doing.
rpopstar
speakenglish writes : "40% of all Americans don't even work ."
holy beep! all those darn kids and stay-at-home-moms are messing up this place....bring back chlid labor, toot sweet....
SpeakEnglish
40% of able-bodied, legally capable Americans don't work. Know your facts before bashing me Kool-Aid drinker.
rpopstar
a quick google of the sentence "40% of able-bodied, legally capable Americans don't work" comes up blank..nothing at yahoo search, either...
the closest i can find in from 04...the wall street journal
"The number of people who don't work for a paycheck have risen to 75 million
.
Of course, there have always been large numbers of working-age Americans who don't work for a paycheck, for a wide variety of reasons.
Some,are so discouraged they've stopped looking. Others are taking early-retirement packages or they are going back to school, collecting disability, moving in with family or taking care of loved ones. The common denominator for many is that the slow-growing job market is forcing them to change.
rbotik
Written like a high school paper. It is not Republicans vs. Environment. It's educated discerning adults vs. humans who have way too much appraisal of their place in the scheme of things. One huge natural disaster will shut them up in time.
SpeakEnglish
One terrorist attack wll shut down Obama's nonsense.
wolverine1987
"I am appalled at the state of discord in the field of climate science...There is no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere." - Award-winning atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, former member of the EPA's Science Advisory Board
"Belief in climate models compared to "ancient astrology"... "I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate." - Award-winning Japanese Physicist Dr. Kanya Kusano, program director of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology
"Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!"- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports
"The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities." - Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal
These are just a few of the eminent scientists who are willing to go on record with the junk science, wishful thinking and pure political nonsense that is driving the global warming debate. Oh, by the way, the earth's temperature has not warmed in over five years, and the recent trend is actuall COOLING.
That is all.
mstracka
Nicely done, Wolverine1987!
rpopstar
ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2007) - The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F.
The University of East Anglia and the Met Office's Hadley Centre have released preliminary global temperature figures for 2007, which show the top 11 warmest years all occurring in the last 13 years. The provisional global figure for 2007 using data from January to November, currently places the year as the seventh warmest on records dating back to 1850.
================
2008 was the coldest year around the world since 2000 -- yet it was still the 10th hottest since records began in 1850, monitoring by British researchers has shown.
========================
obviously, thinking that the recent trend is actually COOLING is an epic fail...
wolverine1987
Easy to say but the facts of the lat two years disagree with you.
"I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made...Hansen embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming." - Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, a former supervisor of NASA's James Hansen, and the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch.
"I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues... Curiously, it is a feature of man-made global warming that every fact confirms it: rising temperatures or decreasing temperatures. No matter what the weather, some model of global warming offers a watertight explanation." - Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros of the UK Natural History Museum
"Whether the ice caps melt, or expand --- whatever happens --- the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology." - Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler, professor at Tulane University
tiotom77
Question...Where exactly do they collect their data? Is it in the Northern or southern hemisphere, is it on sunny days or cloudy days, is it winter or summer..This data is inconsistent unless you measure temperature from every point, every day, through the entire year. A cloud over the data point could have a great impact. Data needs to be collected in the atmosphere where the global warming "line" occurs.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jdavxcrpopstar
tiotom77 "Question...Where exactly do they collect their data?
A quick overview on how nasa does it:
NASA collects temperature data from various sources, including land-based, meteorological stations, sea surface temperature measurements from ships, and measurements taken from satellites. This data encompasses the entire planet, and is run through a method that is explained on NASA's website, which results in a statistically significant global average temperature.
Here's a more detailed explanation :
The `surface record' comprises the combined average of thousands of thermometers world-wide in every country, recording temperatures in standard white louvred boxes called Stevenson Screens, usually mounted one metre above the ground. The boxes are mostly placed where there are suitable people to read and maintain them, such as at post offices in town/city centres, airports, pilot stations, lighthouses, radio/tv stations, farms, and cattle stations. By far the majority are located in towns and cities.
Marine temperatures are determined from ship data, usually measuring the temperature of the marine atmosphere from stevenson screens mounted near a ship's bridge, and sea surface temperature from intake pipes in the ship's hulls.
The resulting data is statistically collated by two leading institutions, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in the U.S. and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Britain.
The process they follow is -
1) Select the stations to be used in the global database
2) Apply corrections for urbanisation to data originating from urban areas.
3) Divide the globe into 5°x5° latitude/longitude boxes
4) Determine the temperature `anomalies' for each box from available data.
5) Combine all the boxes to arrive at an overall `global mean temperature'.
now some people believe that the entire method is a fraud;
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/104929.shtml
and then there's the counter argument to that:
http://jasonleggett.greenoptions.com/2007/08/15/green-myth-busting-globa l-average-temperature/
hope that answers your question...
rpopstar
from nature.com july 11, 2007
The sun, despite claims to the contrary, is not a factor in recent climate change.
Nature had a news article last week about a paper by Mike Lockwood and Claus Froehlich. Their comprehensive (and conclusive) (re)-analysis of solar trends concludes that the sum of natural changes in solar activity since 1985 would have cooled our climate, were it not for the strong warming effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
The two find that the correlation between solar activity and temperature trends post-1985 is actually negative. This means that changes to the sun (including cosmic ray intensity, for that matter) have contributed Less than Zero to the recent sharp rise in average global temperatures.
Blaming the sun for recent global warming is no science-backed position anymore - it is deliberate disinformation.
tiotom77
question to rpopstar...If warmth doesn't come from the sun, where does it come from, inside the earth?
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jdavxcrpopstar
tiotom77 writes; "question to rpopstar...If warmth doesn't come from the sun, where does it come from, inside the earth?"
Lockwood and Froehlich aren't arguing that " warmth doesn't come from the sun," they are saying that, in their study on the sun's behavior, recent activity should have left the planet slighly less warm...
sadly all the papers are behind "pay-to-view" firewalls....
here's a link to the nature article. .http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/07/sun_not_a_cause_of_global_ warm.html
rpopstar
originally i wrote:
2007 was the seventh warmest on records dating back to 1850.
================
2008 was the 10th hottest since records began.
obviously, thinking that the recent trend is actually COOLING is an epic fail...
Wolverine1987: wrote "Easy to say but the facts of the late two years disagree with you."
============
a sample of only two years being indicitive of a trend is meaningless....
let's look at the last 50 years, or so.....
rpopstar
here's a link to epa's temperature change graph 1880-2008...
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html
over the last 50 years, the first 20 were fairly static...the dramatic change is in the last 30
tiotom77
One more factoid...Antartic ice is getting thicker
Ritarita
tiotom-
You need to stop
Posting now.
It's getting too
Embarrassing.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jdavxccamfield
Yes, it IS Republicans vs. the Environment. The GOP persists in promoting big business whatever the cost--even if it means destruction of the planet.
And they no longer can very well argue that the health of the economy is at stake. They've already pretty well destroyed that. About all we have left is people's physical health, so let's not put Republicans in charge of that.
SpeakEnglish
Big buisiness good. Socialism bad.
xbainx
Aaaaand moron. If you've ever been to a public school, called the cops, driven down the highway or mailed a letter you've engaged in socialism. So you have no point to make. Which is fitting, since the Republicans have been kicked out of office.
SFGiants
SpeakEnglish, tu eres un idiota grande.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--jdavxcThank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.