Swingers, Free Adult Chat & Adult Personals Site
 | Blogs > classyginger > Ginger Says... > Betraying the Planet |
Betraying the Planet
6/30/2009 12:54 pm |
So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement. But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases. And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet. To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research. The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course. Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events. In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act? Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly. But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial. Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice. Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause. Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low. Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual? Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable. Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real. Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is. Paul Krugman
|
|||
6/30/2009 2:49 pm |
The problem I see with fighting global warming is that we can't do enough to stop it. It will come even if every man woman and child suddenly becomes fervent ecologists. While we are getting all CO2 conscious China and India are spewing out billions of tons of soot. Acting unilateraly is just a formula for losing jobs, I feel like I have shit in my mouth for saying that, but it is true. Missing out on the Kyoto Accords was our last best chance. Out money would be better spent learning how to compensate for global warming rather than trying to prevent it. I Swami Johnny see's all, knows all, tells very little.
| |||
6/30/2009 4:14 pm |
None Dare Call It tReason If I sell my mother into bondage, it is not treason. It is certainly despicable, and a denial of all that is to be credited, for who I am, and even, THAT I am, but it is not treason. When Cosmopolitania (the New World) has its Constitution, then it may be treason, but we are not there yet. We have yet, co-existing sovereignty, with differing definitions of patriotism.. This bill has many short comings, the first being, that NOBODY READ IT. .......... The original cap and trade bill, HR 2454, was introduced to congress May 15th June 23rd, the thousand-page bill was replaced by a whole new bill - HR 2998 - weighing in at 1200 pages At 3:09 am on June 26th, a 300 page amendment was filed 16 hours later, the house voted and passed the bill none of them had read ............ I'm sure we will later see, what pork was necessary to allow 'politicians' to debate and barter, to give and take, and to (omg) compromise. Maybe yet another couple of billion to a non-U.S. entity, to control 'market share'? Certainly, some unexplainable policy wanks will be included. All sides do it. stamp this "RUSH" Scientists are a very varied bunch. There are some with patents, and some with grants. If I am handing out the grants, I automatically have a result in the published reality of Science. (see big tobacco...or Monsanto) I have always wondered, that our planet, the Earth, is like a gyroscope. And yet we unthinkingly pile huge amounts of mass in certain points of its balanced, spinning sphere. What must a Tokyo do to is polar opposite? When will there be a warble? We already know of the procession of the equinox's, and there is speculation, from maps once existent in the library of Alexandria, that the North Pole has been mapped, in antiquity, to a degree of accuracy unattainable to us, until sonar. Which means that its coast was navigated, seen and mapped. And that the polar balance may have been different then, than from now. Every religion...every single one, has a flood legend at its core. Think of it. Now, I freely admit, that man's existence has an effect on the life giving forces of nature. And yet, I can't see man affecting that nature yet more, as a solution. What do YOU think those spray on clouds are for? Why is 'navigable waters' no longer a definition in the "clean water act"? For every drought, there is a flood somewhere else. For every temperature gain, unseasonable uncomfortableness, somewhere else is losing Spring and Fall. What are the repercussions of global weather shifts in non-English speaking regions? What's the weather in Afghanistan? What do those farmers have to say about the last ten, or twenty years? Give me a global Farmer's Almanac... Is there a threat? yes. Are all the 'scientists' right? no. Are politicians who don't read the bill the answer? no. Are they representing me? or you? no. So, then, when the price tag is finally placed, and all the 'extra' charges revealed.... who WAS represented? That, and why the expediency, at the cost of comprehension? That is the question.
| |||
6/30/2009 8:46 pm |
There is no need to preserve the planet. God put it all here for us to exploit, and He will make sure that we, who were made in His image, can continue to fuck everything up forever. And if it really is real, then all us believers will be swept to heaven in the rapture when the end comes. Ya can't argue with that kind of "logic". Or with the amount the polluters have paid to buy Congress. I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. - Winston Churchill
| |||
6/30/2009 8:55 pm |
the one thing missing from this report, ginger, is the one cause that we have nothing to do with and cannot stop even if we wanted to and that is increased solar activity. i agree with this measure and am one of the few that would like to see it take shape on a broader scale than what is there now but even all of our changes may not help as much as we want. the sun is a fiesty guy and when he decides to warm up (as he has done in the past) there isnt much we can do. if you are looking to reasearch into this just google "sunspots" and that should bring up a plethora of info for you. the unfortunate thing here is that politics decided to get involved with the enviornment... and by this i mean former vp al gore. i watched his movie when it came out and, even as a democrat, i thought that he had made the mistake of talking way too much about his professional life allowing his critics to attack what he had said by saying that it was politically motivated. he had some good points (and despite being a huge hypocrite: you should see how much energy his house puts out! plus when he walked through the airport do you really think that he was going to a plane that you or i might have boarded?) but he also whiffed on some issues too! good to see you back again 
| |||
6/30/2009 9:26 pm |
"...A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases..." I thing the plural of gas is gasses, not gases. I kinda doubt that 212 people had only two reasons for their dissenting votes. I think Barton was concerned by Waxman's response to the question of whether or not he knew all that was in the bill. "....WAXMAN: I certainly don't claim to know everything that's in this bill. I know that we left it to -- uh, uh, we, we relied very heavily on the scientists, on the IPCC and others and the consensus that they have that there is a problem of, uh, uh, global warming. It's having an impact, and that, uh, we need to try to reduce it by the amounts that they think we need to achieve in order to avoid, uh, some of the consequences. That's what I know, but I don't know the details...." Hmmm....A three hundred page amendment dropped at around 3:00 AM on the day of the vote...Past newspaper deadlines, not much time to read the news before going to work for the citizens of the USA....Perhaps some had doubts not only about the science that is still contested by scientists, but the motives and taxes in the bill. I understand that Al Gore is the pre-eminent scientist on all issues of global warming, and his views should not be contested. And I did hear Obama himslef declare that there would be no new taxes, or increased taxes affecting people making less than a quarter million bucks a year. And I understand that making some new government subdised jobs in the "new" energy business will be good for some, bad for others. I also understand our pure democracy, where there is never undue influence placed on members of congress to vote the party line. Vote your conscience. Do not be influenced by lobbies or the screacher of the house. And name calling and labelling is not done in this country. But treason is a pretty serious charge to accuse someone not agreeing with you on proncipal, or having doubts about an issue to be charged with. I can only guess that there was no way to postpone the vote a day or three to give everyone, including the sponsors of the bill to actually read it. Too much to ask. I would think that the un-named nay sayers voting against the bill because it was not strong enough, would have compromised because it was the best next thing to what they wanted, and give a bigger majority for the vote. But Mr. Kruger says they , the unknown ones, voted against anyway. Traitors too? Crime not only against humanity, but the planet? Kruger is a serious journalist. Nobel Prize type people. Who is going to question him? Not quite enough, appatently....Beach Labore pro Pacem
| |||
7/1/2009 6:54 am |
I graduated college in December of 1972, I was the generation of dropout and turn on, I was of the generation that on purpose decided not to try and materialistically improve our status in society, in fact it was noted by one sociologist it was the first purposeful downward socio-economic trend in any society. I bought into the Thomas Malthus theory of overpopulation and that too many people desiring the finite resources of the planet would result in all kinds of global catastrophes, riots, people starving to death, etc. My girlfriend, long tall Sally and I jumped into a VW mini van and headed to Californ i a in February, it was my first and only trip across country by land. As we traveled across country taking our time and staying in campsites I began to notice vast amounts of land where no one lived and then we would come upon the urban sprawl. Away from the influence of academia and that environment a little epiphany hit me; there is no population problem, there is a population concentration problem, there is plenty of fucking room on this planet. Then along came the energy a crisis, the world was running out of fossil fuels, which was a goddamn lie, they just turned the spigot off. Then we are destroying the rainforest to the tune of a million or more acres a day and all the environmental problems that is going to cause. I thought about that for a little while, about thirty seconds, and being a farm boy I know there is not enough equipment in the world to cut down that much forest per day besides even if you did assemble that much equipment and could cut down that much forest, you couldn’t get your ass out for all the fallen trees behind you. More bullshit from the man and now I don’t even know who the man is, government, scientist, environmentalists, it seems to me they were all lying sons-of-bitches. It is at this point I developed my philosophy of, “Fuck-um-all.” The global warming thing, I have a former student that reminds me of you, she is young, beautiful very smart and she is a PhD candidate in geology. When she is back in the area she brings a couple of her friends over and we play beer pong or just drink and talk. It amazes me how she balances her academic life, work, partying her ass off and the fact that she thinks enough of me to come by and visit when she is home. I asked her about the global warming thing. She said that most everything you hear in the news is bullshit on both sides; the real problem is a shift in the gulf stream. When it gets to Greenland rather than continuing on, it is breaking up and branching off into all these different eddies. Yes, there is global warming taking place, yes the glaciers are melting and the rivers that feed into the Atlantic are dumping more fresh warm water into the ocean and it is going to cause a big problem, if the trend continues, Europe will go into an ice age. I don’t really know about this legislation, I haven’t read the bill and don’t even care to really. What is obvious to me is that we mismanage the planets resources. We and every other so called advance nation on the earth have an exploitation and domination attitude toward the planets resource, rather than a nurturing attitude and policy. The growing of GMO crops which is a no till method of farming is destroying the soil, you do not need to know much about farming or growing crops to realize the soil must be tilled from time to time but Monsanto has the farmers under contract and they have no choice but to continue with this practice. And if you have a non GMO crop adjoining a GMO crop when they spray Roundup the over spray will damage your crop and possibly kill it—a farmer can’t take that chance. There are enough resources on this planet to adequately feed, shelter and clothe everyone if they are properly cared for and equitably distributed, you cannot properly nurture the planets resources when profit is the prime motivating factor because short term maximum profits are best achieved exploiting the resources rather than nurturing them.
| |||
7/1/2009 7:20 am |
The cap-N-Tax bill was just a money grab, nothing more. I'll believe in anthropologic global warming as soon as someone can adequately explain one thing to me: why is Mars warming at the same rate is the Earth? Humility is the distinguishing virtue of the believer in freedom; arrogance, of the paternalist.
| |||
7/1/2009 6:40 pm |
The cap-N-Tax bill was just a money grab, nothing more. I'll believe in anthropologic global warming as soon as someone can adequately explain one thing to me: why is Mars warming at the same rate is the Earth? The real point is this level of change over such a short period of time is something that has never happened in the history of this planet before, it's here right now, and it's hurting us! So please, refer to it as "climate change", and understand that it is happening, and that we can do something about it ... but only if we get our lazy, denialist butts into gear and actually *do* something. ... AND THE WINNER IS... ~~~~ 465 and I'm out
| |||
7/2/2009 12:04 am |
Here, we matched a record hot temperature a few days ago. A record set in 1915. I'll agree that we should minimize impact on our environment. We realized that too much piss and shit in New York harbor causes problems over a ceentury ago. It took a little while longer to realize that taking barges full of shit a ways offshore actually did impact the fish populaton there. We do have to shit. Somewhere, somehow, we have to shit. Even our leaders have to shit now and then. Might not be a bad idea to do an experiment and sew up their asses though. They will rot anyway though. Human existance living or when dying, affects the enviromment. We're going to eat, we're going to shit, and we're going to die. If anyone can think of any way to lessen that impact without lessening the population, you'll be the richest, therefore most influential person on the planet, until you rot. Gin, I can read pretty fast too. 300 pages is not a lot, especoially leagaleeze. Skip to every tenth word and see what it is saying. I think the deception with dropping it at 3:00AM is that it was after the newspaper deadlines. No chance for editorials, no chance for the general public to know what ws going on. Maybe they wake up everyone who has the right, the privilege to vote on legislation when someone drops an amendment. Do they get alerted when amendments are introduced? I have not found the amendments online. I have found the discussion draft on the congressional web site, but not even the entire bill as voted on. Presidents before have wanted line item veto, mostly to curb pork. Getting the legislature to present such a bill is like asking them to write a law reducing their pay or health care. Amendments, in this case as others are used for excuses and abuse. I have not read the bill. But I have read that it would require houses to meet California building codes before they could be sold. Not an issue to negociate between buyse and seller. "The house is pretty crappy, pretty old, needs new wiring, floors, and windows, so here's what I'll give you". Nope, have to update it to current California codes before a transaction can begin. Might be a wrong rumor. But if true, my property is worth more if I burn my house than trying to update it, although it has withstood several hurricanes since 1961. I can just visualize a government inspector coming out to my little piece of the beach. New agency by the way just to approve sales of houses. Condem my house. Property values are increasing here in spite of the national trend. But my property would be worth more without my house, regardless of what some buyer might want to pay. And my property could not be transferred without meeting the approval process. Therefore, it would probably be better to exchange my structure for the by-products of combustion. As I said earlier, this might not be in the amendments. That still is shrouded. Might be a flase fear propagated by right wing leftists. But since the additional pages to an over thousand page bill were dropped before newspapers and the general public, and only select legislators could react, and the author of the bill had not actually read it, by his own admission...Well, some of us do not have faith. Some of us think it is more responsible for congress people to read, or have read to them the entire pile they are expected to vote on. I'd agree the system needs fixing, but no one seems to agree with me anyway, especially our elected officials, and this goes back several generations, not just back to Bush.....Beach Labore pro Pacem
| |||
7/2/2009 1:15 am |
I graduated college in December of 1972, I was the generation of dropout and turn on, I was of the generation that on purpose decided not to try and materialistically improve our status in society, in fact it was noted by one sociologist it was the first purposeful downward socio-economic trend in any society. I bought into the Thomas Malthus theory of overpopulation and that too many people desiring the finite resources of the planet would result in all kinds of global catastrophes, riots, people starving to death, etc. My girlfriend, long tall Sally and I jumped into a VW mini van and headed to Californ i a in February, it was my first and only trip across country by land. As we traveled across country taking our time and staying in campsites I began to notice vast amounts of land where no one lived and then we would come upon the urban sprawl. Away from the influence of academia and that environment a little epiphany hit me; there is no population problem, there is a population concentration problem, there is plenty of fucking room on this planet. Then along came the energy a crisis, the world was running out of fossil fuels, which was a goddamn lie, they just turned the spigot off. Then we are destroying the rainforest to the tune of a million or more acres a day and all the environmental problems that is going to cause. I thought about that for a little while, about thirty seconds, and being a farm boy I know there is not enough equipment in the world to cut down that much forest per day besides even if you did assemble that much equipment and could cut down that much forest, you couldn’t get your ass out for all the fallen trees behind you. More bullshit from the man and now I don’t even know who the man is, government, scientist, environmentalists, it seems to me they were all lying sons-of-bitches. It is at this point I developed my philosophy of, “Fuck-um-all.” The global warming thing, I have a former student that reminds me of you, she is young, beautiful very smart and she is a PhD candidate in geology. When she is back in the area she brings a couple of her friends over and we play beer pong or just drink and talk. It amazes me how she balances her academic life, work, partying her ass off and the fact that she thinks enough of me to come by and visit when she is home. I asked her about the global warming thing. She said that most everything you hear in the news is bullshit on both sides; the real problem is a shift in the gulf stream. When it gets to Greenland rather than continuing on, it is breaking up and branching off into all these different eddies. Yes, there is global warming taking place, yes the glaciers are melting and the rivers that feed into the Atlantic are dumping more fresh warm water into the ocean and it is going to cause a big problem, if the trend continues, Europe will go into an ice age. I don’t really know about this legislation, I haven’t read the bill and don’t even care to really. What is obvious to me is that we mismanage the planets resources. We and every other so called advance nation on the earth have an exploitation and domination attitude toward the planets resource, rather than a nurturing attitude and policy. The growing of GMO crops which is a no till method of farming is destroying the soil, you do not need to know much about farming or growing crops to realize the soil must be tilled from time to time but Monsanto has the farmers under contract and they have no choice but to continue with this practice. And if you have a non GMO crop adjoining a GMO crop when they spray Roundup the over spray will damage your crop and possibly kill it—a farmer can’t take that chance. There are enough resources on this planet to adequately feed, shelter and clothe everyone if they are properly cared for and equitably distributed, you cannot properly nurture the planets resources when profit is the prime motivating factor because short term maximum profits are best achieved exploiting the resources rather than nurturing them. Now scientists know that sea levels have been rising in the last 2,000 years in periods of falling temperatures. Elizabeth I lived in a world two degrees cooler that Julius Caesar did. The ancient Romans planted their crops in March. The Italians of 1650 planted crops in the same exact place three months later because that's when it got warm enough to plant! Population in Europe was declining as a result of another ever so slight shift in the Jet Stream. The Earth cooled off after Mt Pinatubo erupted in 1991. So I do believe that green house effects take place as a result of how the Earth has been industrialized. Just how much it has remains to be seen because many scientists know how much money they can receive by being an "alarmist", and create a need so they can have an actual career that allows them to publish. I remember watching a show in the late 1960's about a guide who had to shoot a polar bear so a few researchers he was guiding could do climate change studies wouldn't become its next meal. I remember the year he guided them was 1965. The researchers did not want the bear shot, but the guide said he was forced to. He went to explain the bear had probably been tracking them for over a week, maybe two, through the ice flows. The bear would have got to at least one of them that night if he hadn't spotted it when he did. One of the researchers was pissed off because it put the onus on them for just being there. The guide said he had an "elitist's" mentality. I wonder how many polar bears have been killed to protect researchers in the arctic? I know more that 100 have been killed to protect them, and that's probably only a pin prick of the actual number. Many scientists do have an elitist mentality, and that needs to stripped away from them to see the clarity of any research a scientist does who suffers from that all too common malady. Global warming is taking place, but as you said, population densities are a mjor problem, and that needs to be remedied first before any significant changes occur that will help the environment.
| |||
7/2/2009 3:17 pm |
Ginger, I'm being as tactful as I can with all the left wing nuts that buy into global warming. Go read the actual data--the guy that was pimping the numbers for Gore has been turned out, i.e. his "studies" have been repudiated by his employer after other, 3rd party scientist proved he was manipulating (also known as "falsifying, lying about, or cheating) the data. I always find it interesting when people claim the Earth "has never experienced" something in history---ever. Really? Kind of a cocky statement, unless you're one of those literal Evangelicals that thinks Earth was created a couple of thousand years ago. Folks, the best science can only estimate the timing of ancient events. The ice core samples usually used for CO2 studies aren't that old, in context of earth history. You do know, right, that most of N. America used to be underwater?? And that the shores of Egypt and Italy have parts of their cities from a few thousand years ago underwater? Check out the line-up for discovery channel--they have some fascinating stuff being discovered by divers there. So seas have been rising for millennium. And receding too. Have you read any of the studies of sun spots, and solar flare activity? Some scientists think they can be predictive of weather patterns in the short term. And they are, as witnessed by the cooling pattern of the past 11 years. Space measures of solar radiation are what have warmed the Earth AND Mars, ginger. Lack of same are creating the current cooling. Yeah, I don't live on Mars either, but when the science shows similar data in both locations, why, I'm at a loss as to how someone can conclude that activity confined to the sub-atmospheric areas of just one of the planets could have created the problem. Show me the facts in a calm, level headed way. Lose the hysteria, and the religious like zealotry. Humility is the distinguishing virtue of the believer in freedom; arrogance, of the paternalist.
| |||
7/3/2009 6:50 am |
Aw Ginger, I wasn't venting at you! OK, now we're getting somewhere. Are you saying that everything is interconnected--man, planet, etc? And that we should be good stewards of our resources, because we're just here for a short time and the Earth is going to be 'handed down' to our children? Maybe we should extend that sort of care to our bodies too; you know, like the saying 'your body is a temple'. Sounds like you have an almost religious thing going on here. heh heh... You talk about pollution--you're right, we need to do a better job on pollution. But CO2 isn't a pollutant, despite the recent politicized ruling of the EPA. Trees don't grow without it, Ginger. Where would we be without our trees? Dead, that's where! I thought the promise from Barak Hussein was that we were going to leave politics our of science; and yet like he has done on so many other things he is doing exactly the opposite of what he says. This is just a power grab and a money grab--it isn't going to fix anything. It will raise taxes and reduce freedoms, give more power to the state, etc. But will it help to save the planet? No. We could easily divert into economic theory and the management principles of conservation (like lumber companies that plant trees); after all it's widely acknowledged that the best stewards of the land are those that depend on it to make a living. Farmers, hunters, etc. care more deeply about nature than any tree-hugging Greenspeace radical. But you are absolutely right that there are also some companies that don't do that, like mineral extraction companies (oil, mining, etc.) because there is no way for them to reproduce their main asset or to conserve in absolute terms. They do things to be more efficient in terms of the extraction and to avoid damaging the surrounding environment--sometimes. But that is a bit different. One of the main features of Cap-N-Tax is a welfare program. Barak Hussein knows this is going to drive energy costs through the roof, so there is a program embedded in the deal to give "energy credits" to people at/below 150% of the poverty line. That program will be BIGGER than welfare in terms of expense. Your utility costs are about to go sky high. This is one reason utility companies are a hot play right now--the expected increase in revenue and increase in profits for the utilities. So taxes are going up on the middle class, in a regressive way, and won't spare those earning less than $250K/year. I think us conservatives like people, the planet, and ourselves much more than liberals do. Liberals are so often wracked with guilt and self hatred, and it spills out into their opinions and clouds their thinking. But we do agree that pollution is bad. Straight forward regulation is the right thing to do on that. Frankly, there has been some good legislation from democrats in the past on this and too many republicans have opposed it. But this bill doesn't measure up, either in absolute terms or compared to past legislation. Because it is a dishonest bill, which reflects the leadership that is pushing it. Humility is the distinguishing virtue of the believer in freedom; arrogance, of the paternalist.
| |||
7/4/2009 1:58 pm |
daytimefun4uNme2 Dear friend I haven't done all of the research but I will. I take it on after the weekend. But check out this article about something being promoted by America's disinformation network: =================================================================== Fox News runs with global temperature decline falsehood July 01, 2009 1:11 pm ET SUMMARY: Several Fox News figures have used a purportedly "suppressed" EPA document to advance the falsehood that, in Steve Doocy's words, "for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping." Following allegations that the EPA "suppressed" an internal document that was skeptical of climate change, several Fox News figures have advanced the document's false claim -- previously repeated by CBS -- that, in Fox News host Steve Doocy's words, "for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping." In fact, Doocy's claim simply is not true. A draft of the EPA document stated in one of its "principal comments" that "[g]lobal temperatures have declined -- extending the current downtrend to 11 years with a particularly rapid decline in 1907-8 [sic]." The document went on to state that "[g]lobal temperatures have declined (Figure 1a) -- extending the current run of time with a statistically robust lack of global temperature rise to eight years (Figure 1b), with some people arguing that it can be traced back for 12 years." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, annual global average temperatures have both risen and fallen over the past 11 years, and while there have been some relatively cooler years during that period -- including a decline in each of the past three relative to the year before -- climate scientists reject the idea that those temperatures are any indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist. Scientists have identified a long-term warming trend spanning several decades that is independent from the normal climate variability -- which includes relatively short-term changes in climate due to events like El Nińo and La Nińa -- to which they attribute the recent relatively cooler temperatures. As this graph of annual global average temperatures from the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre shows, the claim that, in the words of Doocy, "for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping" is simply not true: Nonetheless, Doocy and other Fox News personalities used the document's statements to advance false claims about global temperature. For example: •On June 30, Fox & Friends interviewed EPA research analyst Alan Carlin -- one of the authors of the "suppressed" document. After Carlin stated that he wrote the document because the "EPA, in my view, needed to look at the science behind global warming and not depend on reports issued by the United Nations," Doocy replied, "And, in fact, it's problematic because for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping." Carlin did not challenge Doocy's statement. •On the June 29 edition of Hannity, former Alabama Supreme Court chief justice Roy Moore said that Carlin "is with the EPA, and he put a report -- 98-page report out," at which point host Sean Hannity interjected, "That they hid." Moore continued, "[T]hat said there was no increase in temperature; in fact, it's been going down for the past 11 years. And the Obama administration stopped the report." Hannity later stated that "[Sen.] James Inhofe [R-OK] is saying ... that they purposefully hid this information. They buried it." •On the June 29 edition of The Live Desk, Fox News vice president of news and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon said: "There was an important report issued by an EPA scientist, about 100 pages long -- almost 100 pages long -- that said that maybe we really shouldn't be regulating carbon dioxide. After all, global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years." By contrast, Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a June 26 RealClimate's web site posted that in reading the internal EPA document that Carlin co-authored, "[o]ne can see a number of basic flaws [in its main points]; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution." From the June 30 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends: DOOCY: Welcome back. As Congress debated energy legislation just last week, a disturbing story was quietly spreading about an internal report at the EPA that had to be used or hushed -- what is the word? Hushed, before anyone heard about it. The report debunked the science behind global warming, and its conclusions proved so inconvenient that that report was shelved. GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): All right, so we have the person who wrote this report, Alan Carlin, a researcher at the EPA and the author of that controversial report. He joins us live this morning from D.C. Good morning to you, Mr. Carlin. CARLIN: Good morning. CARLSON: All right, so most of us are not scientists. You are. You've worked for the EPA for 38 years. Tell us in a nutshell what your report said this spring. CARLIN: The most important finding was that EPA, in my view, needed to look at the science behind global warming and not depend on reports issued by the United Nations, which is what they were thinking of doing and have done. DOOCY: And, in fact, it's problematic because for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping. From the June 29 edition Fox News' Hannity: MOORE: Let me tell you what Alan Carlin said. Alan Carlin is with the EPA, and he put a report -- 98-page report out -- HANNITY: That they hid. MOORE: -- that said there was no increase in temperature; in fact, it's been going down for the past 11 years. And the Obama administration stopped the report. HANNITY: James -- BOB BECKEL (Fox News contributor and USA Today columnist): Roy, Roy -- HANNITY: Hang on. BECKEL: -- you know what's amazing about that is that you actually quoted a federal government document in defense of something -- HANNITY: Wait, wait. Wait, wait. There's more to that, though. BECKEL: -- which is something you've never done. Wait a second. HANNITY: James Inhofe is saying -- BECKEL: In that -- HANNITY: -- wait a minute -- that they purposefully hid this information. They buried it. MOORE: The people in this country don't know that, that somebody from the EPA under the Obama administration came out and said, "There's no evidence of this." HANNITY: That's a great point. MOORE: They stopped the report and said, "You can't have it." From the June 29 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk: TRACE GALLAGHER (co-host): I wanted to point out, Bill, the story that you kind of informed us about earlier: these emails. The EPA kind of suppressing this scientific information, scientific evidence, that maybe global warming is not as bad as we think and maybe carbon dioxide emissions are better today than they were 50 years ago. Talk about those emails more. SAMMON: There was an important report issued by an EPA scientist, about 100 pages long -- almost 100 pages long -- that said that maybe we really shouldn't be regulating carbon dioxide. After all, global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years. He listed a number of other pieces of data such as, for example, the ice in Greenland is not melting as fast as everybody thought it was. The EPA is now accused of ignoring this guy's dissenting report and forwarding their own sort of politically arrived-at conclusion.
| |||
7/4/2009 4:36 pm |
Global average temperature 1850 - 2008 [image]
|
 |
 |
 |
| Become a member to comment on this blog | ||
 |