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.)
Meanwhile, we have a bait and switch:
The stink surrounding the Pelosi-Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill has become vomit-inducing overnight. Representative Waxman has decided to replace the 1091-page bill with a 300-page bill that will be debated for no longer than three hours today. So your elected representatives will have virtually no time to debate the merits of an economy-spanning bill they will not have had time to read. Speaker Pelosi and her sidekick Waxman are displaying nothing more than complete contempt for the democratic process.
If you’re as utterly disgusted by this as I am, you can send a message to Pelosi and her cronies by telling your Congressmen to vote against this bill. You can e-mail them, call them (202-225-3121), or text the National Taxpayers Union on 54608 and they will help.
Calling the Democrats the “Democratic Party” is the biggest fraudulent advertisement since The Never-Ending Story.
Tar. Feathers. Rail.
We called this morning.
[Afternoon update]
Fifteen reasons to oppose the bill.
My Blue Dog democrat (Parker Griffith’s) has pledged to vote against it.
Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N.
LOL. Inhofe’s list includes weathermen, economists, and others with no background in climate science. Climate scientists on the list have been demanding to be taken off. Click my name for more.
Calling the Democrats the “Democratic Party” is the biggest fraudulent advertisement since The Never-Ending Story.
That’s a great line :). But did anyone really want The Never-Ending Story to be never-ending?
LOL. Inhofe’s list includes weathermen, economists, and others with no background in climate science. Climate scientists on the list have been demanding to be taken off. Click my name for more.
Guess what, James Hansen has no background in climate science, he was a planetary scientist.
Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer from the Center for Global Hydrology most certainly are climate scientists, far more than Hansen.
Here’s on for ya.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/online-global-warming-study-censored-by-epa/#more-8907
Odd… Jim’s got no emoticon about the bait and switch in the bill? Also he didn’t mention any of the European “deniers” of Global Warming.
Or about Obama’s past pledge of five days.
Speaking of Hansen don’t forget the noted scientist Al Gore.
Also wouldn’t being a big supporter of Global Warming restrictions make one hate this bill? I mean if you honestly thought that we had to cut emissions globally and do it right now or face mass deaths…
Well isn’t a watered-down porkbarrel mess like this the exact kind of bill you don’t want? It’ll lull people into a false sense of security while not addressing the postulated risks.
As the Prof says: “I’ll start to consider it a crisis when these people in charge start acting like its a crisis.”
So Jim, if the current 10-year trend of cooling temperatures continues, what’s your fallback? (I’m in need of some comedy relief). As Jonah has mentioned at TheCorner, the current 24×7 coverage of MJ clearly is designed for the purpose of misdirection.
Also wouldn’t being a big supporter of Global Warming restrictions make one hate this bill?
Greenpeace has come out against it, FWIW.
So, is the government going to find me a job with a comparable salary after this bill causes my refinery job to shut down?
I already know the answer.
Tony G Says:
June 26th, 2009 at 8:14 am
“So, is the government going to find me a job with a comparable salary after this bill causes my refinery job to shut down?
I already know the answer.”
Yea, you can get a job at the solar power plant they are going to build on 39 acres of unused industrial park with the porkulus money. Better hurry, it’ll supposedly save a whopping 250 jobs. Oh, and it’s in Chicago; you know, the other sunshine state.[/snark]
Hey Dennis, here is a fairly hilarious rebuttal to that retarded paper :
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/
From Jack’s link: Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.
You mean the planet adjusts to increased CO2 levels ON ITS OWN?!?! But our planet is only 4 billion years old? Who’d have thunk?
“Chicago, the other sunshine state”
GREAT bumper sticker.
Retard
Sorry, any article on realclimate that starts with an attack on the authors simply means that they have little else to go on. Then they head off on other tangents.
Dennis, the article you cited is so retarded there is no other option than to call it what it is : complete and utter drivel. You call this attack? :
“First off the authors of the submission; Alan Carlin is an economist and John Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental Quality. Neither are climate scientists. That’s not necessarily a problem – perhaps they have mastered multiple fields? – but it is likely an indication that the analysis is not going to be very technical (and so it will prove). Curiously, while the authors work for the NCEE (National Center for Environmental Economics), part of the EPA, they appear to have rather closely collaborated with one Ken Gregory (his inline comments appear at multiple points in the draft). Ken Gregory if you don’t know is a leading light of the Friends of Science – a astroturf anti-climate science lobbying group based in Alberta. Indeed, parts of the Carlin and Davidson report appear to be lifted directly from Ken’s rambling magnum opus on the FoS site. However, despite this odd pedigree, the scientific points could still be valid.”
So Jim, if the current 10-year trend of cooling temperatures continues, what’s your fallback?
That’s why there is a hurry, Curt. Pass the bill, so next year during the campaign cycle they can claim credit for the lower temperatures over the past 10 years.
Well isn’t a watered-down porkbarrel mess like this the exact kind of bill you don’t want?
Is it ideal? No. Is it better than nothing? Yes. I think climate change really is a threat, and so I’m willing to tolerate messy, watered-down, far-from-perfect policy if it addresses that threat.
As the Prof says: “I’ll start to consider it a crisis when these people in charge start acting like its a crisis.”
Because the “people in charge” are always on top of crises whose worst effects will develop decades into the future….
So Jim, if the current 10-year trend of cooling temperatures continues, what’s your fallback?
I’d be thrilled if the IPCC is totally wrong, and the climate change threat is much less serious than experts fear. When the forecast calls for a downpour and I take an umbrella, I’m not too bothered if it instead turns out to be a beautiful day.
As Jonah has mentioned at TheCorner, the current 24×7 coverage of MJ clearly is designed for the purpose of misdirection.
Yeah, MJ’s death was no doubt orchestrated by Al Gore, because otherwise the country would be glued to C-SPAN to watch representatives vote….
I’d be thrilled if the IPCC is totally wrong, and the climate change threat is much less serious than experts fear. When the forecast calls for a downpour and I take an umbrella, I’m not too bothered if it instead turns out to be a beautiful day.
How do you feel if your house gets ploughed by a glacier?
Is it ideal? No. Is it better than nothing? Yes. I think climate change really is a threat, and so I’m willing to tolerate messy, watered-down, far-from-perfect policy if it addresses that threat.
When in the Earth’s geologic history has the climate NOT changed? It changes all of the time, cycling between warm periods and ice ages. Are we supposed to believe that humanity can somehow manage to create the Goldilocks “Baby Bear” climate where everything is “just right?” How arrogant! How absurd!
Dennis, the article you cited is so retarded there is no other option than to call it what it is : complete and utter drivel. You call this attack? :
This is an INTERNAL EPA report. When it was not released by the EPA it was leaked to the CEI for release. The report’s origin was confirmed by the San Francisco examiner (you know, that conservative, red state rag).
Say what you like, but give him points for truth in advertising.
How do you feel if your house gets ploughed by a glacier?
Very surprised. I’ll start worrying when Canadian glaciers are bigger than they’ve been in the last 500 years.
When in the Earth’s geologic history has the climate NOT changed?? It changes all of the time, cycling between warm periods and ice ages.
CO2 concentrations have never been this high in human history. Unless we do something they are headed to 500ppm. The last time they were that high, there was no ice on the surface of the earth: not at the poles, not in the mountains, nowhere. No glaciers, no snowpack, no spring melt. Good luck trying to grow food for 10 billion people then.
How arrogant!
The arrogance is in thinking that we can change the atmosphere in ways that humans have never seen, and not expect consequences.
…give him points for truth in advertising.
That was me. The original pseudonym was “Retard Watch.” It was clearly too long.
I’ll start worrying when Canadian glaciers are bigger than they’ve been in the last 500 years.
And I’ll start worrying when the ocean is lapping at my doorstep on the Florida Intracoastal.
The arrogance is in thinking that we can change the atmosphere in ways that humans have never seen, and not expect consequences.
No, the arrogance comes from thinking we have the ability to control the climate, which BTW has been warmer during human history. It has also been far colder. About 10,000 years ago, the Earth was experiencing an ice age that had glaciers extending well into what is now the US. Then the climate warmed. For about 500 years (roughly 1350-1850), the Earth went through the “Mini Ice Age”. Then, without an SUV in sight, the Earth began warming.
Humans were alive during the last big ice age. They survived the warming that followed as well as all of the cyclical climate variations since. They did it without any of our current technology. But we’re supposed to believe that today, humans are helpless against the onslaught of “climate change”.
BTW, it’s a nice touch changing the focus from “global warming” to “climate change” since that implies that we’re supposed to be equally concerned should the climate warm or cool. However, that being the case, the motivations and thought processes are suspect when the same remedy (reducing CO2 emissions) is recommended either way.
This is an INTERNAL EPA report. When it was not released by the EPA it was leaked to the CEI for release.
It couldn’t pass internal EPA peer review, no doubt.
How arrogant! How absurd!
How retarded.
Humans were alive during the last big ice age. They survived the warming that followed as well as all of the cyclical climate variations since. Humanity survived WWII. A large number of individual humans did not.
The argument, at least from me, is not that humanity will be wiped out by global warming. Rather, preventing or reducing global warming now will prevent or reduce deaths and other problems later.
Chris, can you point me to the study that says that it will cost more, in discounted dollars, to ameliorate the effects of climate change than it will to prevent it?
Um… if there’s no ice at the poles, then we can grow food there (I’m no farmer, but last time I checked food doesn’t grow on ice) — or at least on Antarctica, which is dirt under all that ice. And we can send ships right across the Arctic Ocean instead of around the polar ice cap, which means shipping time will be cut. Also life will be much easier in places like Canada, Alaska, and Siberia, where there won’t be all that ice to cope with. As for people who are displaced by rising seas… well, the seas won’t rise indefinitely (the Waterworld scenario is wrong); and they can move to places like Antarctica and Greenland, which will really be green again. Warmer weather means more plants. You know what, global warming melting the ice caps sounds better and better. Everyone go outside and add more carbon to the atmosphere, pronto!
Me either. Of course I rarely spend more that 10 bucks on an umbrella. Idiot.
Humans were alive during the last big ice age. They survived the warming that followed as well as all of the cyclical climate variations since.
“They” survived in the sense that some of them survived; who knows how many didn’t. No one is saying that climate change will drive humanity to total extinction.
Soon there will be 9 billion of us, using just about every spot of decent arable land on the planet, and counting on our continued ability to collect enough fresh water and grow enough food for everyone. A small climate change that makes a spot inhabitable affected few people then, and they could move. You can’t realistically move all the people in Bangladesh.
They did it without any of our current technology.
The couple billion humans who live on a dollar a day have no more technology at their personal disposal than stone age man.
But again: we’re headed for CO2 levels and temperatures that no human has ever experienced, much less 9 billion humans who rely on large-scale agriculture.
BTW, it’s a nice touch changing the focus from “global warming” to “climate change” since that implies that we’re supposed to be equally concerned should the climate warm or cool.
The change in title is due to the fact that not every place will get warmer, even as the global mean temperature goes up.
So does more CO2. Be careful Andrea, pointing out facts to someone who thinks you need glaciers, snowpack and spring melt to grow food can lead to premature cross-eyed-ness.
Rand – I’m actually agnostic on the global warming issue. I think it’s more important from a national security issue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and resulting subsidies of people that don’t like us. My only issue was that saying “humanity survived X” doesn’t mean “X” isn’t something we’d all rather avoid.
Andrea – A lot of the land at high latitudes is not suitable for agriculture. Northern Ontario, for example, is mostly bare rock and gravel. Also, the last time the polar ice was gone, much of the American grain belt was a desert. All this ignores the fact that it would take a thousand years to melt Greenland, due to the specific heat requirements to melt ice.
Like I said, agnostic on global warming.
I think it’s more important from a national security issue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and resulting subsidies of people that don’t like us.
Oil is fungible.
Jim Says:
June 26th, 2009 at 11:06 am
“I’m willing to tolerate messy, watered-down, far-from-perfect policy if it addresses that threat.”
Yes, because there is no point in striving for any degree of honesty and integrity what so ever. The only thing that matters is whether it FEELS like the right thing to do. Warm fuzzy feelings with Care Bear hugs for everyone!! But not too warm, lollololollol!
I’m so glad I haven’t been hit with the postmodernist lib-tard stupid stick.
Um… if there’s no ice at the poles, then we can grow food there (I’m no farmer, but last time I checked food doesn’t grow on ice)
It takes a lot more than land to grow food. It takes soil, sun, and rain. Good soil is rare, and you don’t want too much sun and rain or too little, or sun or rain at the wrong time. The notion that we can get rid of all the ice on earth, which today furnishes the freshwater used to irrigate our crops, and expect to grow more food, is worthy of Pollyanna.
As for people who are displaced by rising seas… well, the seas won’t rise indefinitely (the Waterworld scenario is wrong); and they can move to places like Antarctica and Greenland, which will really be green again.
Care to estimate the cost of moving a billion people to Greenland? Or the likelihood that that a billion subsistence farmers can survive on Greenland? Are you sure that buying them new countries is cheaper than protecting the ones they have?
Warmer weather means more plants.
Ah, that must be why Arizona is the crown jewel of American agriculture, and there’s no farming in snowy Iowa….
Yes, because there is no point in striving for any degree of honesty and integrity what so ever.
What dishonesty, or lack of integrity, are you referring to?
The notion that the ice on our planet has even a remote relationship to water used for irrigating plants is worthy of needing some grade school remediation.
Soon there will be 9 billion of us, using just about every spot of decent arable land on the planet, and counting on our continued ability to collect enough fresh water and grow enough food for everyone. A small climate change that makes a spot inhabitable affected few people then, and they could move. You can’t realistically move all the people in Bangladesh.
If the climate warms, vast areas in places like Canada and Siberia that are marginal for farming now will be better suited. People will adapt. We don’t need hare-brained legislation that does nothing to address the global issue of CO2 production. The CO2 production in China and India are rising far faster than any reductions in US production this legislation has any hope of achieving. In the end, we accomplish nothing but adding huge tax costs to the price of everything.
I’m agnostic as to whether global warming is as big a problem as it’s made out to be, and definitely think we can’t conserve our way out of the mess, but I keep seeing glaring factual errors in this thread.
The notion that the ice on our planet has even a remote relationship to water used for irrigating plants is worthy of needing some grade school remediation. Err, wrong. First, the extent of the polar ice caps determine air and water currents, which directly affect rainfall. For example, the Sahara was a forest during the last ice age, due to change of rain patterns. Also, current US agriculture in places like California is dependent on winter snow and ice in the Rockies.
If the climate warms, vast areas in places like Canada and Siberia that are marginal for farming now will be better suited. Again, it takes more than sun for plants to grow. Soil and rainfall conditions are big factors. Also, this won’t be additive to our total agricultural area, as during the last era of ice-free poles places like Kansas and Iowa were deserts.
Rand – yes, oil is fungible during a free market. Wars, boycotts and other political upheavals can change that.
Agree with Curt. When a meteorologist is wrong, it costs me $10 (and I leave the umbrella in the car). When a climatologist is wrong, it costs $1,300 a year for the first year and then goes up from there. So another rhetorical piece of garbage in support of a pork bill for Democratic fundraisers.
Yeah, the climate is fine! Sucks the economy got screwed, but hey, the polar bear can kill more seals.
The notion that the ice on our planet has even a remote relationship to water used for irrigating plants is worthy of needing some grade school remediation.
Yeah, India will be fine when there’s no more snowmelt coming down from the Himalayas.
We don’t need hare-brained legislation that does nothing to address the global issue of CO2 production.
So you’d support legislation that addresses global CO2 production? Do tell how that would work.
When a climatologist is wrong, it costs $1,300 a year for the first year and then goes up from there.
The CBO estimates $250 a year for the wealthy. The Iraq war cost far more, and somehow that wasn’t the end of the U.S. economy.
What “mess” are you referring too? Would you not agree that our environment is vastly cleaner than it was 20 years ago? And that it was cleaner 20 years ago than 40 years ago? Sorry, but I think “global warming” agnostics are part of the problem. (the “problem” being spending gross amounts of resource in the mis-guided notion we can change the weather, when we don’t even know which direction it is changing now) Eventually developing nations will be forced to cut their growth, which will needlessly condemn millions of people to decades of poverty, hunger, and early death. Tragic in it’s own right. But even worse, extending modernity to those currently in poverty is proven to result in reduced population growth. Something the enviro-idiots purport to be in favor of. IMO, there are too many agnostics on the sidelines, willing to go along with this charade.
The CBO estimates $250 a year for the wealthy.
Do you agree with the CBO about health care, too? Has the CBO ever overestimated costs on a program?
Also, current US agriculture in places like California is dependent on winter snow and ice in the Rockies.
Hmmm, as a resident of California I can tell you that agriculture within this state is much more dependent upon what happens with precipitation in the Sierras than in the Rockies.
If global warming is real it will still get plenty cold in the mountains to form snow and ice each winter. The real issue is whether precipitation amounts would be adversely effected. California is precariously close to consuming more water than nature gives each year even a slight decline is pretty serious business.
“The couple billion humans who live on a dollar a day have no more technology at their personal disposal than stone age man.”
That’s one of your biggest howlers yet. Did you make that up on your own or are you quoting someone else?
I have rarely seen a case of Ready, Fire, Aim work. Especially one created by government. “Doing something” in this case is a waste of resources and a drain on the economy. Any bets on what the stock market does if this gets through the Senate?
I think the Democrats ARE a democratic party. They tally up the votes of their ardent supporters, many of them foreign nationals, and do whatever those supporters tell them to do.
Remember, what is good for the Party is good for the nation. Also, four legs are good, while two legs are bad.
It’s purely a gut feeling, but I don’t think this bill will pass simply because their are to many Democrat politicians who would like to keep their jobs. Of course, I didn’t think Obama would be elected so my guts track record isn’t so good. 🙁
“The couple billion humans who live on a dollar a day have no more technology at their personal disposal than stone age man.”
Rand, with all due respect, that one needs to be anchored.