“Shameful Obstructionism”? Or “Climate Tax Bill”?

Simply insane.
Are we to believe the Republicans simply dont get it?
I guess so.
How sad that a few rich greedy people are destroying our childrens future.

Jock, you, yourself admitted that the measure to convert food to ethanol in order to combat global warming was a stupid idea that has now resulted in the starvation of many people in developing countries.
You KNOW that this bill TOO will cause tremendous financial harm not just to our country but to others as well. It would raise the price of gas another 53 cents a gallon and put more excise taxes on food and other commodities. When our economy goes down, so do those of other countries.
You also said yourself “there is much we don’t know.” You admit with that statement that we still really do not have all the facts. You then turn around and say we DO know all the facts and that we have to pass a bill like this to “do the right thing”.
Well I say the right thing is do more research.. and yes, the scientists ARE divided. The latest to change his opinion on global warming is the director of climatology at NOAA. Others are also jumping off the bandwagon.
So far, there have not been any scientists recently who first took the position that global warming was questionalbe who converted over to believing it’s a fact. There has been MANY who went the reverse.
In a time when gas is already over $4.00 a gallon, to add a tax of 53 cents a gallon and worsen the recession for a theory that you yourself admitted that we still don’t have all the facts yet, is utterly ridiculous.

jfm125 – of course we don’t have all the facts. We never will. But we have enough facts to know there is a problem. Ignoring that would be like assuming you will never run out of gas just because your gas gauge is stuck.
There have been scientist who have gone the other way. Closing your eyes does not make facts go away.
There are many reasons for the high food prices causing trouble around the worls, and corn-based ethanol is probably not the larget. High fuel prices and predatory monopolies are major factors.
The goal of all of this is to bring fuel prices DOWN, and to share the burden more fairly. When Exxon makes 40 billion dollars a year in profits, the burden is not being shared. Obviously we need to break their grip on our fuel sources.

Jock; do some feaking research here….don’t go blindly following the likes of Gore and company and stop with the class envy BS. Do you have ANY idea the size of oil companies…they are hugh and just by that fact they will generate profits that seem hugh, especially to small minded thinkers….. what some company should spend a trillion dollars on research and infrastructure so they can make 1 million dollars? In comparison to what they spend to bring you the products you use everyday and make your life a whole lot easier their profits are not out of line. If you want to get jacked off on something how about doing it to the government who get 23% to 28% of every gallon of gas you buy…..4 to 5 times more than the oil companies get from all their work. The government doesn’t research, drill, take risks, pay the insurance on trillons of dollars of equipment and infrastructure, pay share holders or take losses……they just steal. Then on top of that the government restricts where oil companies can drill and limits the refineries that can be built…essencially limiting supply so that there will ALWAYS be more demand than supply and therefore keeping prices high and revenue to the government also high. Chicken Little is King to some folks.

Jock; there is no more human suffering in general now than there is at any given time….this isn’t Eden…..stuff changes and will ALWAYS change……evolution not only exists for plantes and animals but the planet as well. And my dear friend you are quite wrong on scientists predicting ice ages as little as 40 years ago. I grew up during those times and I have read many articles from scientists then…..most where by folks that faded away because their claims failed to materialize. Man kind is in no way in danger except by those that seek to curtail us. If we were to implement some of these “ideas” our economy would surely take a major hit…we would suffer but so would people across the globe who rely on us for goods and services……they would be the ones first hurt by our slowing economy and then we would soon follow. Just the failed ethanol BS is just a fraction of the harm we can do by trying to do good deeds. That has done nothing except drive up the price of corn, put less food on the table and make our cars run less effeciently. The last one is VERY important. Your gas mileage will be a bit less because of ethanol so you get less mileage from a tank of gas and have to buy more often….oh the joy of that.

Jock; I didn’t say they didn’t use the money but it’s a cash cow for them and they NEVER stop spending…they ALWAYS try to do more and more and more and more……..we don’t need them to do EVERYTHING for us. Look at how much money they take in JUST from oil…..probably conseravtively a half trillion dollars a year….that doesn’t even include income taxes, sales taxes, all sorts of other taxes they make businesses pay including SS and MedaCare…..there is no shortage of revenue…..only an excess of spending.

Tim – The scientific literature from the 1970′s has been reviewed and they found that more scientists were predicting warming than cooling. The consensus on AGW today is obviously much stronger, so the comparison is just another attempt to distract.

Jock, the idea was to get gas prices UP, not down. The bill’s requirement was to raise gas 53 cents a gallon.
The food shortage has ONE major cause and you ADMITTED that cause. The bill that requires corn to be converted to ethanol to fight global warming. Yes, the high gas prices too are a factor. Why?
The global warming activists successfully block oil drilling here in this country which WOULD lower gas prices. With the demand higher and the production MUCH lower the prices jump. Now with 53 cents added the price of gas woutld jump even higher, thereby ADDING to the food crisis.
As I said, more and more scientists are moving away from the global warming theory. This ALONE should send a message. We DON’T know enough to justify putting millions into starvation and poverty.
As to your response to Tim. Jock, your global warming movement is CAUSING human suffering, not reducing it. You have created the VERY conditions you said global warming would have created.

jfm125 -
The bill has no “requirement” to raise gas prices. The 53 cents was from a worst-case-scenario projection by one study.
What happens to energy prices depends on a lot of things. I always think it is hilarious when the free market idealogues claim that we have no control over oil prices because it is all from increased demand on the global market, and then turn around and claim that it is all the environmentalists’ fault. Well, which is it?

I agree we need to be very careful in how we proceed to cause the least harm to the economy and to people around the world. But we need to figure that out within the realm of reality.
We have a problem, so let’s get together and figure out what to so about it. Denying we have a problem may seem like a good short-term solution, but people will suffer for it in the end.

zyx
Believe it or not, by these arguments we tend to learn a little more as many arguments give valuable references to additional resources.
jfm125
It’s not so much moving away from AGW as it is realization that other factors are involved that are having a larger effect than AGW and CO2 is not the right tree to be barking up. NASA now realized that they underestimated the impact of solar cycles. NOAA is starting to look harder at ocean cycles, and so on. The difference in outlook is a slow realization that reducing CO2 will not be a cure.

Tim
What some folks do not realize is that we are currently within an ice age. What is referred to as “the end of the last ice age” is in reality “the end of the last glacation”. This period we live in is one of two possible conditions: an interglacial (consensus) or a continuation of the ending of an ice age, which if true means that it will get a whole lot warmer (for 90% of the earth’s history it has been MUCH warmer than it is now). Let us pray that the consensus is correct on this, but keep in mind that, sooner or later, this ice age too will come to an end.

Jock
I had posted this for you 2 blogs back but I don’t think you saw it:
From: “Mountain ranges rise much more rapidly than geologists expected”
“Tectonic theory may need revision in light of new study in Science”
Public release date: 5-Jun-2008
“When oceanic and continental plates come together, geologists believe the continental crust buckles. On the surface, the buckling manifests itself as a rising mountain range, but beneath the crust, the buckling creates a heavy, high-density “root” that holds the crust down like an anchor, says Garzione. Conventional tectonic theory says that convection of the fluid mantle deep in the Earth slowly erodes this heavy root like a stream wearing down a rock, allowing mountains to gradually rise as the crust shortens and thickens.”
Contact: Jonathan Sherwood, University of Rochester
I think I got it from “Scientific Blogging” but now I can’t remember.

All I know is Al Gore’s carbon footprint is much bigger than mine. Especially with that personal jet he gets around in.

Jock
Agreed. The article cited is based on a peer reviewed paper, as are most of my recent references. I go to Skeptical Science for links to such papers, both those that support CO2 induced AGW and the arguments against it. Things have cooled down there (pun intended) due to the latest papers out of NOAA and NASA.
But more important to me are the new papers on past climate, which would not have been written if not for this AGW scare. They are coming up with very interesting data on paleoclimates.

There is a lot of combustible sparing going on here
and all very interesting.
I am confused about jock not wanting to see Gore’s input and yet fundamentally agreeing with him ?
Are you two agreeing on facts but not the cure ?

If there is a serious problem, do you trust governments to fix it ?
You can chip in your part and mine of that $45-trillion.

when we vote the republican party out of washington this fall every thing will get better. the republicans are a old fashioned and out of touch party and they have done more in the last 40 years to destroy this nation and world then any other group.

Jock
1. If the scientists can’t agree why should you or I. All the hoopla is from Gore who we both know is no scientist.
2. Even the scientists who predict CO2 as a major GHG are not being alarmist, its a group of political environmentalists who are.
3. Many scientists who supported CO2 as a cause are changing directions now.
4. Fact, the record highs were caused by ocean cycles converging, specifically ENSO and PDO.
5. Fact, it has not gotten any warmer since 1998 and that was El Nino. If CO2 were the primary GHG as they thought, warming would have continued. RealClimate claims it has but only using GISS and playing with the numbers.
The IPCC has recognized this as well.
6. The tipping point is a myth. CO2 does not have either a linear effect nor an exponential effect. In fact the increases in its ability to act as a GHG reduce in proportion to its increase, ie. if co2 doubles, it has more effect but does not double or any where near that. 800ppm is still nothing compared to what it was at the beginning of the current ice age and while much warmer than now, still plunged into the iceage.
Reading paper after paper I found that these scientists may be well educated but not any more intelligent than anyone else. No Einstiens out there, but there are a few Darwins and they claim “natural causes”.

The world’s climate is like a large ship – it takes a lot of little things to happen and a lot of time to change course. In order to stop global warming it will take international, national, local and individual action. And yes some of it will have to be unilateral. Whatever level we influence we need to make it happen,
The fates of future generations are dependent on it.

patriot – The issue is not whether other factors affect the climate. Scientists are well aware of that. The issue is whether massive emissions of CO2 and methane ALSO affect the climate, and would make things worse than they otherwsie might be.
Because so many factors affect the climate, the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not going to be perfect, and is more likely to be apparent on the time scale of centuries rather than decades.

So let me see if I have the objections down: No regulation for developing countries, right? Big polluters there, right? Cap and trade means you get to let someone else pollute for you, right?
So, you’re saying because no one else is doing anything about reducing pollution, we shouldn’t either, huh? And having caps isn’t a good idea, because some may pay to avoid their limits regardless of who pollutes, huh?
Obviously we have some real mental midgets out there. As I’ve said before, were it up to me, I’d nuke every oil well and coal mine on the face of the planet and make people deal with the aftermath if that’s what it takes to stop our CO2 habits. But that’s just me and it ain’t gonna happen but we have to start somewhere. If not at home, where the HELL do you suggest we start?

Jock
AGW aside, we need to determine what the actual cause of the problem is and determine what needs to be done.
BTW
Know anyone familiar with temperature instrumentation during WW2? I am trying to get an idea as to what was used and if rounding off was used. I did not start work in that area until the late 1970s so I haven’t a clue.

The Government view is, we have 50-100 years to fix this. The Mayan Calender runs out in 2014… I think maybe they got it right.
As for the tipping point, I think that was reached when the ice at the north pole melted, and those huge sheets of ice started falling off Greenland and Antartica. We can expect more cyclones, huricanes, and tornadoes, and more flooding to kill crops, and then drought to kill the rest.
Drilling dry wells to catch some of that floodwater would be a good idea, but who will pay for it? That could help raise the aquafers back up and stop some of the droughts.
You, history shows that every time the earth gets over populated, nature steps in and cleans house. And the bad thing is, the people who use the least of the earth’s resources are the hardest hit.
So pack up and move to high ground, build your own solar and wind powered home, and grow your own food. After all, we saw just how well our government handles diseasters with Katrina. They packed the poor into the stadium, let some of them die, shipped the rest off to parts unknown, and used our tax dollars to rebuild the stadium instead of the 9th ward. God Ble$$ the U$A.

The democratic lawmakers are giving comfort and aid to the enemies of the US. These enemies are those that speculate in oil prices with the assurances that the oil producers, even in the US are content to get the higher prices without producing any more oil. The democratic law makers are trying to kill the use of coal the only immediatly available alternative to oil. Coal is not significantly more CO2 productive than oil when both are finally delivered to the actual user.
Energy(right now fossil fuel) is the basis of our economy and many children in the US will starve, not get medical attention and die if more restrictions are placed on the use of fuels. The inhabitants of the US are being misled by the politicians and others who choose to get elected rather than telling the truth about energy sources. Part of the truth is that wind, sun, and geothermal are only useful in limited places and in small amounts and are too capital intensive for widespread use; Hydrogen is like electricity it can only move energy from one place to another, but it is far more inefficient to produce hydrogen so use electricity.

Effie
BTW its December 2012, not 2014. Common misconception is that it ends. But the calendar does not end there, it loops back to the beginning. Its just a calendar, not a prediction of anything.

Effie
On the bees, there is another factor or two involved – evolution: mutation and variation. I recently came across a hive in my yard that does not match any seen in the area. I have checked with bee keepers and forestry specialists. The bee is black, white and gold; the size of a bumble bee but builds a hanging egg shaped hive that is smaller than a baseball. Can’t find it online.
But it is pollenating my fruit trees so I don’t want to kill or capture it to get it identified. A hybrid? Mutation? Variation new to the area? Unknown.

While reading this Bill, I grew sick. How many times did I see terms like fee or fees that will be attatched to….everything.
Then to top it off, I counted at least 3 new government agencies or committees that will be started up. More money, tax money, our money.
Then on the news and even on here, there are the supporters of this Bill that think life won’t change. Gas prices wouldn’t be effected by this, food wouldn’t be effected. Everything on the shelves at Wal-Mart/Target won’t be effected.
I say to them. Did you even read the Bill??? Not just the summary, the actual Bull, I mean Bill.
This economy is all we hear about in the news and how bad it is. This Bill will KILL the economy and break the tax payer.
That must be the goal, the hidden agenda. Bankrupt most of the low/middle class so that have no choice to become completely dependent on the government. I guess that’s one way to get to communism.
I am glad that someone has thought about this for longer than 3 seconds and realized the damage this Bill would do.
And it is all for what??? Manmade Global Warming. Without a shred of proof that man is the problem, btw.
Now there are the alarmists, the chicken littles that yell the sky is falling, those people have accepted this idea as if it is set in stone. Their blind faith in this religion will be the doom and destruction of America. They are blinded by partisan politics and refuse to hear anything. They cover their ears and yell “blah blah blah I can’t hear you blah blah blah”. Then they just repeat their talking points over and over and over. It gets so old. Those flat earthers refuse to accept that there are over 31,000 real scientists that disagree with AGW.
This Bill should be taken much more seriously by these flat earth alarmists.

Did this article forget to mention the Clean Air Act did the most to curb acid rain and not really cap and trade?
I’m am nuke, drive as little as possible, and an avid gardener. My carbon footprint is a negative and have room to sell.

Stevie B
Extremely well said. Check out the Skeptical Science website where we are discussing the current climate issues. As a scientist your input would be appreciated (at least by me).

James
Well said. I wish more of my generation had neen as inquisitive as you.

It is too bad that the environmentalist groups cannot come up with viable solutions.I am real tired of hearing the Chicken little saga played out and nothing to show for it.Viable solutions work. Chicken little does not.

John T: GM apparently thinks an electric car is now a viable option. They’re going to be rolling out the Volt in a few years, and I can hardly wait. Did you know they were talking about electric cars in the late 19th century as an alternative to gasoline powered engines? I wonder what happened there.

cturple
A new paper on arctic melting is out:
“The contribution of cloud and radiation anomalies to the 2007 Arctic sea ice extent(1)minimum(2)”
Jennifer E. Kay(1,2), Tristan L’Ecuyer(2), Andrew Gettelman(1), Graeme Stephens(2), and Chris O’Dell(2)
(1) Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research
(2) Dept. Atmospheric Sciences, Colorado State University
The PDF can be downloaded at Skeptical Science from the (Kay 2008) link.

40000 year old Mexican footprints are accepted by whom? I attended a lecture by Al Goodyear in January, who is excavating the Topper site (I think that’s the one you’re referring to – in South Carolina.) The place was packed, and the skepticism was EXTREMELY high. Anthropologists don’t generally accept new findings until the evidence is overwhelming – and then there will some who still drag their feet. There are some who still hold to the Clovis First theory.

cturple
I’m not certain on who, I read the articles yesterday or the day before. On the 40k its disputed by a cal. prof.
On the auto industry, the answer was simple. Petrolium oils were already being used as lubricants and fuel to replace whale oil and the lighter compounds were waste and had to be burned off. They developed gasoline to avoid waste (the early engines could run on multiple types of fuel).
This is the same way plastics were developed from petroleum, former waste became valuable product much more durable than bakelite.
In the meantime Baker sold electrics but only big cities had electricity so internal combustion was the only choice for most people. The electrics were lucky to get 5 miles before it became faster to walk, could not be used for trucks due to lack of torque and the big cities had developed public transportation already using steam tech so Baker went under.
BTW they also built steam cars (Stanley Steamer) back then but they were very heavy and not efficient but heavy industry ran on steam (steam roller, locomotive, steam shovel, etc.), first wood fired then coal fired, because they could produce more power than early IC engines. Diesels replaced them eventually.
Chrysler developed a turbine suitable for cars that could run on almost any fuel and demonstrated it at the NY worlds fair in 1964-65. It was quiet and cheap to run but lacked acceleration in an era when horsepower is what the consumer wanted.
Electrics built originally for fleet use by AMC received the same welcome by the public. The industry listens to the public. When hybrids and fuel efficient vehicles sell they build more of them, they are not in the fuel business so they really don’t care if it’s run on gas or not.
Now that people will actually buy these types of vehicle despite extra cost, they are investing in their development.

I’m not terribly familiar with the history of oil and the electric grid, but electricity had been widely used for the telegraph for decades when the automobile was introduced. I imagine Ford’s cheap gas powered car was a major factor in the decline of the electric. $360 vs $2500 is a huge difference.

cturple
telegraph transmissions are low voltage communications lines, they compare to, but are much simpler than, copper phone lines, but not power lines which are high tension DC that have to be transformed along the grid to AC and split by phase and voltage. Before Edison’s time they just did not know how to do it.
Just think about the computers that were available when we were growing up and the advent of the first home computer, the original apple.
The apple with 16k bytes was 16 times more powerful than that monster in the basement of the pentagon (eniac or univac, I get them mixed up). The 20th century was probably the fastest paced advances in human history.
Ford’s cheap gas powered car was a major factor in the decline of all his U.S. competition, none survived intact. Remember that Pontiac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Chevrolet, Dodge, Plymouth and many brands long gone like Nash, Rambler and Packard were once individual companies.

No, I know you didn’t post a link. I did a search on the Nat Geo site, but the link returned in the search doesn’t bring anything up.

Thanks for the link, Ed. I’ll be interested to see how this ends up. It sounds as though the dates – and the identification of the imprints as human footprints – are still contested. I’m learning not to jump to conclusions – even if those conclusions are much more interesting than the alternatives. I thought I had identified two mounds in southern georgia earlier this year. It turns out they were 500 year old river courses. Still interesting, but not what I thought they were.

Derek Bros
High tension lines are DC.

Derek Bros
“Using NCEP reanalysis data that span four and a half solar cycles, we have obtained the spatial pattern over the globe which best separates the solar-max years from the solar-min years, and established that this coherent global pattern is statistically significant using a Monte-Carlo test. The pattern shows a global warming of the Earth’s surface of about 0.2 °K, with larger warming over the polar regions than over the tropics, and larger over continents than over the oceans. It is also established that the global warming of the surface is related to the 11-year solar cycle, in particular to its TSI, at over 95% confidence level.”
From the Conclusion:
Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity.
By Ka-Kit Tung and Charles D. Camp