House Passes "Weak" Climate Change Bill

The American Clean Energy and Security legislation that was backed by the Obama administration and congressional Democratic leaders as a centerpiece of the drive to address climate change was approved Friday by the U.S. House.

Congressman Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who was a primary architect of the bill, called its passage a "decisive and historic action to promote America's energy security and to create millions of clean energy jobs that will drive our economic recovery and long term growth."

But the House endorsement was anything but enthusiastic.

The bill earned just 219 votes in its favor to 212 against, with three members not voting.

Most House Democrats backed the plan to curb the heat-trapping gases that scientists have linked to global warming. Of the 219 "yes" votes, 211 came from members of the president's party. Just eight Republicans voted for the measure.

Opposing it were 168 Republicans and a notable 44 Democrats.

The Democrats who opposed the plan were, for the most part, conservatives and moderates from rural areas -- many of whom feared the measure would be too tough on farmers.

But there were progressives opponents who said the bill did not go far enough to address climate change.

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who has a history of advocating for green energy policies, cast one of the "no" votes.

Kucinich said of the legislation:

It won't address the problem. In fact, it might make the problem worse.

It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods. It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its way out– coal – by giving it record subsidies. And it is rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense. There is $60 billion for a single technology which may or may not work, but which enables coal power plants to keep warming the planet at least another 20 years.

Worse, the bill locks us into a framework that will fail. Science tells us that immediately is not soon enough to begin repairing the planet. Waiting another decade or more will virtually guarantee catastrophic levels of warming. But the bill does not require any greenhouse gas reductions beyond current levels until 2030.

Today's bill is a fragile compromise, which leads some to claim that we cannot do better. I respectfully submit that not only can we do better; we have no choice but to do better. Indeed, if we pass a bill that only creates the illusion of addressing the problem, we walk away with only an illusion. The price for that illusion is the opportunity to take substantive action.

That view was echoed by a number of environmental groups.

"To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history. We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak," said Daniel Kessler, of Greenpeace, which opposed the bill along with Friends of the Earth.

Carl Pope, national executive director of the Sierra Club, countered that, "With today's historic vote, Congress has taken the first step toward unleashing a true clean-energy revolution."

The key phrase there was "first step."

Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, argued the middle ground, saying: "I do believe a weak bill is better than no bill ... I think today's vote establishes a good deal of momentum. There's a head of steam, hopefully, wind- and solar-generated steam."

Comments (195)

1. Best anaylysis yet in short is;

   "Based on available evidence and analysis, Lieberman concludes "that both the seriousness and imminence of anthropogenic global warming has been overstated." But even if we assume the problem is as bad as the hysterics claim, the proposed bill "would have a trivial impact on future concentrations of greenhouse gases. … (It) would reduce the earth's future temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree C by 2100, an amount too small to even notice." The bill would bind only the U.S., not other nations, many of which, like China, are "polluting" at a record pace. Also note that many European nations that have already imposed similar emissions restrictions have seen their emissions rise.

   But what would the costs be for this quixotic legislative paean to earth goddess Gaia? Contrary to the flawed analyses being advanced by the bill's proponents, Heritage estimates that the direct costs would be an average of $829 per year for a household of four, totaling $20,000 between 2012 and 2035. But when considering the total cost as reflected in the cost of allocations and offsets, the average cost to that family unit would be $2,979 annually from 2012 to 2035. Adding insult and hypocrisy to injury, the bill would hurt the poor the worst because they would bear a disproportionate burden of the higher energy costs the bill would trigger.

   Posted by BigPasture at 06/26/2009 @ 11:59pm

2. Now here's the kicker. The bill is also projected to harm the manufacturing sector and cause estimated "net" job losses, averaging about 1.15 million between 2012 and 2030. The overall gross domestic product losses would average $393 billion per year from 2012 to 2035, and the cumulative loss in gross domestic product would be $9.4 trillion by 2035. The national debt for a family of four would increase by $115,000 by 2035.

   Enough already. Throw the bums out!

   Elections 2010 and 2012 will change this claptrap!

   Posted by BigPasture at 06/27/2009 @ 12:02am

3. rio's just hopin' that global climate $%^& up gets ignored.

   he stands to make a fortune with his new ocean view property.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 12:11am

4. 9,000,000,000 unemployed running out of benifits are not intrested in cap and trade that will eliminate not just jobs but businesses that provide them!

   Posted by BigPasture at 06/27/2009 @ 01:26am

5. Employment is and should be directly proportional to change in a society as when a society adapts its productive structures and services to new challenges like this one...and a really good business is the one that takes the challenges and adapts itself for the better.

   Perhaps if we reduce our per capita energy consumption we will reduce temporarily our GDP, but who thinks that throwing goods as garbage is healthy economic growth? Like for example, our per capita consumption of gasoline that is the highest in the world likely. Does our gas consumption mean that we are the happiest society in the world? Negative!!! Does it mean that we got brighter prospects for the future as an economic engine? Not a chance!!!

   Saving resources and sustainability is the name of the game. Despite what Heritage might say, in the long run these policies mean savings for the people and the most opportunities to get a job in a very varied - multiple interest society. We will do the same with less resources because of higher efficiencies.

   Don't be afraid GOPers there will still be some banks around.

   Posted by Frank42 at 06/27/2009 @ 01:56am

6. I guess this is relevant now.

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

   The Climate Change Climate Change

   The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.

   By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

   The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in [countries such as Australia, Japan, the U.S., Poland, Czech Republic, France, and New Zealand.]

   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. ...

   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...

   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...

   Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist... published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is ... [s]o compelling ... that Paul Sheehan, [an] ... ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence."

   ...

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/26/2009 @ 09:00am

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/27/2009 @ 06:59am

7. Nobody speaks truth to power like Representative Dennis Kucinich, just as nothing speaks power to truth like the plutocratic establishment.

   Nonetheless, the truth will out. It is to be hoped that the truth of global climate change will manifest itself clearly enough, and soon enough, to motivate stronger measures before the change becomes too rapid to control.

   "BigPasture," you're confused. To accept the greenhouse theory is not to deify the Earth's biosphere. It is to recognize that we are the Earth's stewards, not her worshipers.

   Another element of your confusion, common among plutocrats, is to panic when large sums of money pass through the hands of government agents, but not when they pass through the hands of the rich.

   A third element of your confusion is to confuse money with wealth itself, and to suppose that the former is non-renewable and the latter infinitely renewable. According to this topsy-turvy view, it is unforgivable to waste money, but perfectly appropriate to waste natural resources and to pollute the biosphere.

   You've got it backwards. It is natural resources that are often non-renewable, whereas money is infinitely renewable. We can print as much money as we want, but our real wealth depends on our stewardship of natural resources, as well as our eventual transition from non-renewables to renewables. This epochal transition is worth spending good money on. It is not only important for our survival; it is also, for those of us clever enough to see it, a great job-creating opportunity.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 06/27/2009 @ 07:05am

8. Neither skepticism nor unbelief is sufficient to dethrone the greenhouse theory. This would require an alternate theory that accounts for recently observed changes in the Earth's global average temperature better than the greenhouse theory does.

   This alternate theory does not yet exist. Yes, I know, some people believe it's all the sun, but most scientists say solar activity has not varied enough recently to account for the change; the math doesn't support this claim. Other people blame increased water vapor, but this begs the question whether increased water vapor is the result rather than the cause of warming. Indeed, I wonder what else besides warming could be the cause of increased water vapor?

   Even a more modest theory, one that accepts the claim that greenhouse gases cause global warming, but that these gases have a source other than human activity, has yet to be formulated.

   It's not enough just to say that the greenhouse theory is "uncertain." This is true of EVERY scientific theory. Scientists do not cling to a theory because they believe it is perfect and complete, but because it is less imperfect and less incomplete than all the others.

   The greenhouse deniers, as I have said, have their work cut out for them. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) still endorse the anthropogenic greenhouse-gas theory of global climate change, and they still represent the VAST majority of scientists, in this country at least.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 06/27/2009 @ 07:22am

9. We will do the same with less resources because of higher efficiencies. Don't be afraid GOPers there will still be some banks around. Posted by Frank42 at 06/27/2009 @ 01:56am | ignore this person | warn this person

   fewer resources. good posts

   Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 08:57am

10. Kucinich was correct in voting NO in order to bring attention to this half assed bill. Funny thing is, even the half assed bill will not pass the senate. What comes out of the senate will most like be half of a half assed bill, if any at all. Obamabush loves coal and nuclear energy. "Clean Coal"!! LOL.

    The same cobbled up type mess will come out with Healthcare. Like Rom said "we just want the bragging rights for healthcare, we will sign whatever you come up with".

    Not to worry Anti and Troll, the Democrats are going to make sure you get your much beloved "End of The World".

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 09:22am

11. Is is sickening that obama is such a weakling. But as my Senator, most of us already knew that he was a liar and a pandering politician. No guts, just talk. America is responsible to elect strong, competent leaders. Not fools with less than a single term who think they can run an entire nation when they are not fit to run a Chicago Ward...

    Posted by Tiger2Lover at 06/27/2009 @ 09:25am

12. Posted by Tiger2Lover at 06/27/2009 @ 09:25am

    So who would you have elected? McCain? Ron Paul? or maybe Nader? Out of those three only McCain stood any chance and if he had been elected we would all have been living in tent cities soon. Like I said before the election, "Would you rather play Russian Roulette or Roll the Dice?"

    I chose the Dice.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 09:55am

13. Look for an added point on the still-increasing UNemployment rate before it finally begins to descent!

    Look for a weak Wall St. as investors try to digest what this means to industry, particularly anything energy-intensive or, to be subsidy-dependent as Congress gets ready to create more groups feeding at the Fed. table!

    Look for dollar declines.....

    Look for delayed capital investments while the Senate takes up this 219-212 monstrosity....and if passed by the Senate, look OUT below!

    Look for inflationary expectations to rise....and bond yields.

    Look for a slaughtering of Dems at the 2010 Election!

    Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 10:01am

14. The people with the real solutions like Kucinich, Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold are often portrayed as "Buffoons" or "Fringie". Odd isn't it, that the people who have the real solutions and integrity to help us solve many thorny and probably fatal world problems are potrayed in this manner.

    To me it is like I'm living in a terrible dream that I want desperately to wake up from, but can't. If only someone would shake me. I need to awaken. I just heard someone comparing Michael Jackson to John F. Kennedy on a cable news show...

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 10:16am

15. Look for a slaughtering of Dems at the 2010 Election!

    Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 10:01am

    Oh crap, now the real loonies are crawling out of their graves in hope of ressurrection. Settle down Hap. Take a sip of that precious stock of Reagans blood that you keep in the fridge.

    And for God's sake, Zip up those Pants!

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 10:20am

16. I just heard someone comparing Michael Jackson to John F. Kennedy on a cable news show... Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 10:16am | ignore this person | warn this person

    it gets worse. I heard Rush say that Sanford coulda been "our" JFK.

    JFK was a prodigious boffer. the american people were nevertheless fortunate to have him in charge during the Cuban missile crisis.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 10:37am

17. the american people were nevertheless fortunate to have him in charge during the Cuban missile crisis.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 10:37am

    Very astute observation. Can you imagine what the world would be like now if let's say Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, or god forbid Bush2 had been faced with the same situation? What was left of us would most likely have been trying in vain to put some butter on the toast at this point..

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 11:19am

18. unlike Reagan, Clinton and Bush2, Kennedy had experienced war first hand.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 11:30am

19. And we are still in grave danger. Does Obamabush have what it takes to avoid the influence of the MIC? I hope he listens to Eisenhower.

    I try to be optimistic, but I feel dread.

    But in the end. Does it really matter? By that I mean does it really matter if we make the grade or not? Somehow I think not. At least not in a cosmic sense. The universe is very large and without doubt their are other worlds that are facing a similar set of problems.

    The human race has reached the make it or break it point. The honeymoon is over. The beauty of evolution is that it does not operate in a closed system, it is cosmic.

    So we may die out and some other wondrous experiment may prevail. Evolution plays no favorites. But luckily even if you fail you are still part of the parade.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 11:37am

20. unlike Reagan, Clinton and Bush2, Kennedy had experienced war first hand.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 11:30am

    Another good point. Yes Kennedy like Eisenhower both experienced war, firsthand. The rest of those pretenders did not. Those who speak most loudly of war have likely never spent a minute on the battlefield.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 11:41am

21. The reason I include Bush1 in that group is that I have never thought that anyone who was almost exclusively involved in an Air War has ever really experienced in the lesson of war. Same with MCcain. They were to far removed from the experience to learn the lesson.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 11:49am

22. My opinion of Kucinich keeps going up. On the surface it may appear that we opposed the bill for different reasons, but it was a bad bill. It will not solve any real problems. Any bill 1200 pages long should be defeated on length alone.

    I would like to commend the troll for posting a quote from Joann Simpson. I knew her in the 70's. She is a brilliant and fine women with an uncanny physical intuition. Like most GW skeptics, she hasn't take a cent fron the fossil fuel industry. Those of you who haven't worked in the sciences should take her statement to heart. There IS a great deal of pressure exerted to confirm to the party line on CO2. I hope she goes on to speak her mind.

    Posted by lnh at 06/27/2009 @ 12:06pm

23. There IS a great deal of pressure exerted to confirm to the party line on CO2. I hope she goes on to speak her mind.

    Posted by lnh at 06/27/2009 @ 12:06pm

    I'm sure you meant to say "conform to the party line". Anyway, why in the world would Joanne Simpson feel compelled to even comment on climate change or as to if she were pressured to conform to any party line on climate change?

    After all she was never considered an authority on climate change. Nor is her party affiliation confirmed.

    She was not trained in climate science. Her career was dedicated to the study of meterology, with a speciality in tropic regions.

    But even given that she is no expert on climate she said, "we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable."

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 12:21pm

24. She may retract that statement now and indicate that "liberals" forced her to say that. And threatened her with waterboarding at sea onboard the infamous Eco-Terrorist ship the "Steven Erwin". LOL. I'm sorry I really should not laugh at my own "jokes".

    In any case if I retired from my profession and then found my savings and investments inadequate to provide for me. (Stocks crashing) Then I also would be tempted to take some money from the corporate fascists that are tring to kill the planet with their own greed.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 12:31pm

25. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/27/2009 @ 06:59am:

    I agree 100% and I also read Strassel's column in the WSJ. This whole man-made global warming scam is being revealed to be the lie it is. It's sick to read and hear the references to government scientists who push this BS when they would lose their jobs if they didn't. You have to wait until someone retires to get to the truth? Criminals, these politicians who pervert science to fit a political agenda.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 12:33pm

26. Posted by JakobFabian at 06/27/2009 @ 07:22am:

    You say the warming theory is holding sway? It might help if the field evidence would fit the model. So far the predictions have only shown how wrong the models are. It seems sun spot activity is a rather large driving component to climate change which is completely ignored by those brillant government- protect-my job/grant-scientists. The planet warms, the planet cools - all rather cyclical. For this, we are going to give up freedoms, cheat the people through high taxes, trash our economy, and feed the pockets of politicians who Do Not Have Our Interests At Heart.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 12:45pm

27. Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 12:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    you lost. get used to it.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 12:50pm

28. Look for a slaughtering of Dems at the 2010 Election!

    Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 10:01am

    I hope you keep predicting Happy. You have been wrong and wrong again so far. You said Hillary would win, she didn't. You said McCain would win, that he would slaughter that uneducated affirmative action darky, look who's in office. Please Happy, keep bringing it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:22pm

29. You have to wait until someone retires to get to the truth? Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 12:33pm

    pyeattte, why would someone wish to wait until they retire to tell the truth in this case? If it were me I would tell this truth you speak of before I was retired in such a globally explosive debate. Then it would gain me something more substantial. While I was still viable, I could expose the filthy liars who made me tell a story. And run for cover on the side of truth, justice and the american way.

    They would shield me and protect me and welcome my defection and provide me with all the media attention to make their point.

    Why was this not done? Because in reality a defection like that while you still had any credibilty would result in a brisk debate concerning your confession and would shine a bright light on you. And we all know what happens to lies when they are exposed to the true light, don't we?

    They wither and die..

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 1:22pm

30. Here's my problem with both sides of this argument. Both sides are speaking with absolute certainty about something that there isn't enough concrete science to be certain about. Some of the science on both sides conflicts with itself. So pyeatte and Happy and whoever coming here and saying "I'm absolutely certain it isn't true because the science that the pro-GW people are using is shaky and I have this shaky evidence to back it up." is hysterical. I sit here and laugh every day at the hypocrisy being presented on both sides. Evidence leans towards GW being true.

    Darin you presented an article that said there are 700 scientists who don't believe in it. There are millions of scientists in the world. Easily more than 10,000 of those are probably qualified to talk about global warming. Out of over 10,000 he could only find 700 people who disagreed? I don't think all of those people are government scientists. In fact I would say less than 1/10 of the 10,000 are government scientists (remember 10,000 is a guess I don't know the number I'm just throwing something out it's probably even higher). All they could muster was 700? That's less than 1%. WOW great results. Call me when you make it to 5%. Nader can get 1%.

    The only reason you and the people you read consider this evidence to be "damning" is because you want to believe them instead of the pro-GW people. Most of the evidence presented is just as if not more shaky than the pro-GW stuff. But you subscribe to that ideology just as blindly as some people subscribe to the pro-GW ideology. I wish I could get you guys to step back and look at yourselves for once. You would see how laughable your positions are when you state from a place of certainty that your shaky science is better than their shaky science.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:30pm

31. "his whole man-made global warming scam is being revealed to be the lie it is."

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Yeah, thousands of scientists and extremely notable scientific organizations (so far almost every notable scientific group as a matter of fact) in different disciplines all over the world got together and said "Hey you know what, let's scam everyone. Let's not do what we studied to do through many hard hard years of work, instead let's just make something up and then find a bunch of plausible evidence to back it up and then present that as the truth." I bet they were at a big round table because that is where you would plot the socialist threat from.

    Jesus do you realize how ridiculous you sound? You are almost as bad as the people screaming that the Jew's are conspiring to control the world. Give me a break.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:35pm

32. In fact I would say less than 1/10 of the 10,000 are government scientists

    fewer

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 1:38pm

33. And to sum it up, the statement that this supposed expert "Joanne Simpson" made that I quoted in a previous post: "we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable." was retracted then one must conclude on prima facie evidence,that she is a liar.

    If she truly did not believe this and was a person of any character, she would not have lied. So this evidence is proof that she is a liar, unless evidence can be submitted that this statement was made under duress, like torture or other threat.

    This persons credibilty has thus been impugned.

    I rest my case. LOL..

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 1:40pm

34. America is responsible to elect strong, competent leaders.

    Posted by Tiger2Lover at 06/27/2009 @ 09:25am

    from the veritable smorgasbord of choices!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 1:45pm

35. The reason I include Bush1 in that group is that I have never thought that anyone who was almost exclusively involved in an Air War has ever really experienced in the lesson of war. Same with MCcain. They were to far removed from the experience to learn the lesson.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 11:49am

    spoken like the true anti-war coward that you are.

    you aren't fit to kiss their feet.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/27/2009 @ 1:46pm

36. Look for an added point on the still-increasing UNemployment rate before it finally begins to descent!

    •• you still use gov't stats? anyhoo, once it bottoms, it ain't going nowhere for a whiiiiilllllle.

    Look for a weak Wall St. as investors try to digest what this means to industry, particularly anything energy-intensive or, to be subsidy-dependent as Congress gets ready to create more groups feeding at the Fed. table!

    •• the fed just paid 25 billions for aig castoffs. as to wall street...

    Look for dollar declines.....

    •• remember the devaluation of '71?

    Look for delayed capital investments while the Senate takes up this 219-212 monstrosity....

    •• look for slightly less glum clouds....

    and if passed by the Senate, look OUT below!

    •• and if not passed by the senate, look OUT above!

    Look for inflationary expectations to rise....and bond yields.

    •• this bubbleless bubble ain't inflatin' anytime soon, try as the obamagarchs may.

    •• as the economy worsens, however, blond yields do increase.

    Look for a slaughtering of Dems at the 2010 Election!

    •• whoopy-doo.

    Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 10:01am

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 1:51pm

37. Also I find it funny that you people are sitting here talking about how these government backed scientists don't tell the truth because they could lose their jobs. How many of those 700 scientists Darin are industry scientists, specifically industries that could be hurt if global warming turns out to be true? Hmmmmm I wonder. I wonder if maybe those scientists could also lose their jobs if they don't argue a lie.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:52pm

38. spoken like the true anti-war coward that you are.

    you aren't fit to kiss their feet.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/27/2009 @ 1:46pm

    Eh, depends on which war you are talking about. Drop bombs on civilians with no real repercussions to your action isn't really fighting. For instance how many US planes have been taken down in Iraq to date due to enemies?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:54pm

39. The people with the real solutions like Kucinich, Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold are often portrayed as "Buffoons" or "Fringie".

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 10:16am

    kinda like high school, ¿no?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 1:54pm

40. I agree 100% and I also read Strassel's column in the WSJ. This whole man-made global warming scam is being revealed to be the lie it is. It's sick to read and hear the references to government scientists who push this BS when they would lose their jobs if they didn't. You have to wait until someone retires to get to the truth? Criminals, these politicians who pervert science to fit a political agenda.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 12:33pm

    Pyeatte,

    What is clear is that the left swallows this hoax with all of the enthusiasm of a $500 hooker. the difference is that while any thinking individual knows that it is an act, these lemmings believe in this nonsense with a religious fervor that would make Elmer Gantry proud.

    They will never stop and actually engage in the kind of skeptical analysis that real science actually requires. Instead they worship at the feet of those who promote this garbage because it fits their ideology. That ideology is fueled by any new movement that creates more opportunity for the Federal govt to intrude on our lives in more and more areas.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/27/2009 @ 1:55pm

41. "spoken like the true anti-war coward that you are. "

    Does this mean you are a pro-war non-coward? Mean you want to be in a constant state of killing people?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:55pm

42. Pyeatte,

    What is clear is that the left swallows this hoax with all of the enthusiasm of a $500 hooker. the difference is that while any thinking individual knows that it is an act, these lemmings believe in this nonsense with a religious fervor that would make Elmer Gantry proud.

    They will never stop and actually engage in the kind of skeptical analysis that real science actually requires. Instead they worship at the feet of those who promote this garbage because it fits their ideology. That ideology is fueled by any new movement that creates more opportunity for the Federal govt to intrude on our lives in more and more areas.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/27/2009 @ 1:55pm

    I guess most of the world is the left anti. I thought it was the left who was supposed to be elitist.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:56pm

43. The debate on climate change has closed long ago. Now the question remains, will we take the any meaningfull measures to counter this threat? Or will we succumb to the temptation to do nothing and doom this rare jewel of a planet to destruction?

    To me it seems to be the ultimate test. For those of you who believe in a God. It appears to me that perhaps that God has bestowed on us a rare gift. As amateur creators we have the chance to show that as a whole we are capable and willing to take a small part of creation and be responsible for it. Kind of like a parent giving a pet to their children and attempting to teach them how to nurture and care for it.

    Can we get beyond our childish ways and truly become spiritual adults?

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 1:58pm

44. "What is clear is that the left swallows this hoax with all of the enthusiasm of a $500 hooker. "

    Oh and my response that yes the majority of the world's scientists who are experienced in a field that can allow them to study global warming all got together and thought, let's make a huge hoax. That's right. That doesn't sound crazy and paranoid at all.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:58pm

45. For this, we are going to give up freedoms, cheat the people through high taxes, trash our economy, and feed the pockets of politicians who Do Not Have Our Interests At Heart.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 12:45pm

    america has no oil (did you know the u.s. exports oil?).

    the dollar is drying up.

    whether the global climate thingy is real is irrelevant.

    oil equals conflict.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 1:59pm

46. Can we get beyond our childish ways and truly become spiritual adults?

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 1:58pm

    No, the debate has not closed. The debate still goes on.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:59pm

47. "spoken like the true anti-war coward that you are. "

    Does this mean you are a pro-war non-coward? Mean you want to be in a constant state of killing people?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:55pm

    grow up. what a childish question.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/27/2009 @ 2:02pm

48. Also I find it funny that you people are sitting here talking about how these government backed scientists don't tell the truth because they could lose their jobs. How many of those 700 scientists Darin are industry scientists, specifically industries that could be hurt if global warming turns out to be true? Hmmmmm I wonder. I wonder if maybe those scientists could also lose their jobs if they don't argue a lie.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:52pm

    again, this is irrelevant.

    oil = heroin (but we've got no more poppy seeds)

    anybody for a gasoline martini?

    the stuff is just bad news, rotten crap from way back when. in fact, it's solar energy.

    are we dumber than plants?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 2:05pm

49. Posted by antisocialist at 06/27/2009 @ 1:55pm

    Face it, the reason you find it so unbelievable isn't because the science isn't there, it's that much like the rest of your particular brand of right, you resist anything that is not status quo. You fear any type of change so much that even if that change has the potential to destroy the very planet you stand on you refuse to believe in it. We have already established that even if Global Warming was incontrovertibly proven you would not believe in it.

    I think this is because you are too religious and therefore you believe only God has the power to destroy the world, not humans therefore it would shake your faith a little bit if humans actually had the power to destroy the world before judgment day.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 2:09pm

50. What is clear is that the left swallows this hoax with all of the enthusiasm of a $500 hooker.

    •• hmmm, where'd you get your price guide, pastor?

    the difference is that while any thinking individual knows that it is an act,

    •• and how do you "know"?

    these lemmings believe in this nonsense with a religious fervor that would make Elmer Gantry proud.

    •• very bad analogy.

    They will never stop and actually engage in the kind of skeptical analysis that real science actually requires.

    •• that's from leviticus 7:11, right?

    Instead they worship at the feet of those who promote this garbage because it fits their ideology.

    •• you know, you've taken quite an embarrassing path in this post.

    That ideology is fueled by any new movement that creates more opportunity for the Federal govt to intrude on our lives in more and more areas.

    •• "Let Thee Burn Tires, commanded the Lord*!"

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/27/2009 @ 1:55pm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 2:10pm

51. *message to the god:

    just kidding. larry's almost awake.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 2:11pm

52. Chaoszen, You are taking Simpson's quote on Gore and IPCC out of context. She did not retract it, you are twisting her words. She was a foremost expert on hurricanes. She worked at UVa's Environmental Science department in the 70's when they put together one of the first groups dedicated to studying human impacts on climate (which is why I went there). They were doing real research in the field. Joanne was well aware of what was being done.

    What upset her so much were claims by advocates of GW that hurricane intensity was increasing as a result of global warming. She pointed out how ridiculus this claim was.

    Hansen is an astronomer who has never taken a course in climate, why should anyone take him seriously? GW theory did not come out of climate departments or the environmental movement for that matter. Look at the original work, what degrees those people had and what departments funded them. It was mostly the nuclear crowd. Why is everyone ignoring the influence that they had in shaping this debate?

    I've been an active environmetalist for 40 years. I've worked in atmospheric science. And yes , at times I kept my opinions to myself out of fear of losing a contract. It sickens me to see the damage done to the movement caused by the GW actors.

    Posted by lnh at 06/27/2009 @ 2:12pm

53. humans actually had the power to destroy the world before judgment day.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 2:09pm

    one love canal at a time...

    (what an awkward name)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 2:13pm

54. osted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 2:05pm

    Oh I agree with you. My stance is the same as always. Better safe than sorry. I fully support moving towards a greener economy. On top of that I think the people like Happy who are freaking out saying this will destroy our economy are just crying wolf. I think the American people and economy have shown themselves to be extremely adaptive. I think that one industry will just be replaced by another, probably the same companies will just buy the new technology. Employees will be retrained. You know how I know this? Because it's already happening. So many industries have been switching to greener methods for the past 15 years at least. I went to a winery this weekend that was 100% solar powered and use horses to care for their fields instead of vehicles.

    The economy will be more than fine, government will not intrude anymore than it already does in our lives and we will move on as if there was no change. This is just fear mongering as usual to get people on their side. Just like whenever they have someone running for President they scream elect us or you WILL be nuked. My stance is and will always be, better safe than sorry.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 2:15pm

55. The economy will be more than fine

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 2:15pm

    you've got very powerful binoculars.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 2:17pm

56. Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 2:10pm

    You kind of read my mind. I was sitting there laughing at the though of someone who so fervently believes in a religion without any actual proof of the existence of God chastising others for something that at least has some scientific evidence to debate. Hehe. You just attacked when I stayed my hand.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 2:17pm

57. government will not intrude anymore than it already does in our lives

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 2:15pm

    Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police

    By Ryan J Foley

    May 07, 2009

    MADISON, Wis. -

    Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 2:18pm

58. You just attacked when I stayed my hand.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 2:17pm

    not attacking, just trying to wake up my buddy.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 2:19pm

59. I actually think that the green revolution will create a better more sustainable economy. Companies will have to expend less money on resources, like the cost of shipping, or electricity therefore netting them more profits. Also our economy will not be based on a resource who's price is controlled by a region of the world who hates us. It will also allow us to get our armies out of a part of the world that doesn't want us there. We won't spend the next 100 years fighting China for oil.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 2:20pm

60. not attacking, just trying to wake up my buddy.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 2:19pm

    Oh I'm sorry.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 2:21pm

61. It is amazing to me that in the true sense of debate. There is none here. The usual rogues gallery post their poison.

    Then the more reasonable, educated and intelligent post a response. It seems to me that there is a contingent of semi-human abberants attempting to undermine a natural progressive discussion. They seem to be motivated by Fear. They are afraid.. Consumed by fear.

    Anti is a prime example. How would you like to live in that head? If your head was a house, what sort of furniture would you find there? Scary thought.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 2:21pm

62. Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 2:18pm

    That's heartening. Soon enough they will be selling cars with the GPS's built in.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 2:22pm

63. Anti is a prime example. How would you like to live in that head? If your head was a house, what sort of furniture would you find there? Scary thought.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 2:21pm

    Chairs made of nails. A bathtub that's a waterboard. The rack for a bed maybe?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 2:23pm

64. lazy boy......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 2:25pm

65. Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 12:50pm you lost. get used to it.

    Keep counting your chickens...the Senate will not go along.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 2:31pm

66. Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 1:22pm: You ask why someone woulod wait until they retire to tell the truth? It's probably because they would like to make it to retirement instead of being fired.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 2:34pm

67. If you look at the interdependance of all things, like in string theory and causality, then you would understand that the furniture in the head of a singularity like Anti exists in your head and mine aswell, in one form or another.

    So this Fear will not cease to exist.

    It's a like the old saying: "We are only as strong as the weakest link in the chain."

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 2:35pm

68. Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 2:34pm

    I was hoping that by now you would realize that you are a simpleton. No ability to comprehend complex principles.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 2:37pm

69. Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 10:01am

    I hope you keep predicting Happy. You have been wrong and wrong again so far. You said Hillary would win, she didn't. You said McCain would win, that he would slaughter that uneducated affirmative action darky, look who's in office. Please Happy, keep bringing it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:22pm

    Ah, CCC, how many times do I need to correct you?

    I maybe wrong on a lot of things, but I never "said Hillary would win"! I pegged her at 50/50 shot to win the Dem nomination when most were locking her in...this was early, when your Magic was down in the teens!

    I did peg McCain to win the GOP Nomination when Guiliani and Romney were the favored. For the Big Election, I bet you 3-1 (or 5-1) that McCain wins taking the odds. Now, I've proven exactly right!

    You further slander me with my saying McCain "would slaughter that uneducated affirmative action darky, look who's in office". Now, I ask you, are you worth my time at all....I don't like Negros who act like ni--ers!

    Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 2:51pm

70. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:30pm:

    "We have already established that even if Global Warming was incontrovertibly proven you would not believe in it."

    Absolutley not true. Prove that man-made global warming is true. You can't. I am just not willing to sacrifice the American economy on something that has a very flakey underpinning. It is very clear this is not based on science but politics, the agenda politics of controlling people and how they live. When the models used by the GW 'professionals' are not able to predict anything except how wrong they are, tells me they really just don't know. Instead they take direction from the agencies that hire them. Toe the political line or get out - talk about corrupting.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 2:56pm

71. ...the Senate will not go along.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 2:31pm

    Not so sure about that. Almost wish it would.....then, there would be absolutely NO question who and what party is responsible for the next 4~5 years.

    Same with UHC!

    I'm a Boomer and have the luxury of `checking out' in the not-far future.

    Democracy is what it is.....majority don't always do what's the best and the majority can NEVER properly plan for the long term; hence, all the BIG-ticket Gubber fuckups!

    Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 2:58pm

72. Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 2:18pm

    I guess the Wisconsin police are very concerned with public safety, and want to make sure everyone gets home in one piece. I'm sure the police would never abuse the power to track my whereabouts for anything other than looking out for my best interests.

    That is exactly why I would go on Ebay and buy a GPS discovery device and then place in on the nearest State Patrol Car.

    That would insure that they get home safely. And I would feel better..

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 3:01pm

73. Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 2:58pm

    Hey Happ! Insanity will never actually be a defense in your case. It would most like be, a case of Voluntary Insanity.

    Now that is a horse of a different color!

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/27/2009 @ 3:09pm

74. Look for a slaughtering of Dems at the 2010 Election!

    Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 10:01am

    Happ, just for the fun of it...what's your official prediction for Democratic seats lost, then, in '10?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/27/2009 @ 3:10pm

75. spoken like the true anti-war coward that you are.

    you aren't fit to kiss their feet.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/27/2009 @ 1:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Now, Dick Cheney, THERE'S a physical coward for ya! About five times deferred, I believe.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/27/2009 @ 3:12pm

76. You further slander me with my saying McCain "would slaughter that uneducated affirmative action darky, look who's in office". Now, I ask you, are you worth my time at all....I don't like Negros who act like ni--ers!

    Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 2:51pm

    How is that slander? That's exactly what you said. You claim he is only President because of affirmative action. It's only slander if it is a lie. Am I worth your time? I don't know, don't particularly care. I don't know what your last statement refers to. Some bigotted comment I guess. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about because you used that statement WAY out of context. Maybe you should stay away from using phrases you don't fully understand.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:13pm

77. "We have already established that even if Global Warming was incontrovertibly proven you would not believe in it."

    Absolutley not true. Prove that man-made global warming is true. You can't. I am just not willing to sacrifice the American economy on something that has a very flakey underpinning. It is very clear this is not based on science but politics, the agenda politics of controlling people and how they live. When the models used by the GW 'professionals' are not able to predict anything except how wrong they are, tells me they really just don't know. Instead they take direction from the agencies that hire them. Toe the political line or get out - talk about corrupting.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 2:56pm

    I was referring specifically to anti but whatever you can take it to mean you too. Again you state that it is "very clear" that is is based on politics and not science but it isn't not even half of the scientists who work on global warming work for the government. So how can it possibly be political if the majority of them are perusing studies on their own. You say you are following the logical thought process but if you stop to actually think you will see that there is no logic to what you are saying. You are just toeing the line of the accepted anti-GW response. That it's all a big conspiracy.

    There have been many independent studies as well as organizational studies. Most every organization, government and not non-government agree. Now tell me, what is the incentive for the majority of scientists to all pull on big hoax on the world? Especially considering that if some of them came out right now and disproved it completely they would be making oodles of money and gain oodles of fame.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:20pm

78. "Not so sure about that. Almost wish it would.....then, there would be absolutely NO question who and what party is responsible for the next 4~5 years. "

    Let me ask you Happy, if the economy fully bounces back, and we get out of these wars will you take a bow and start voting Democrat? Will you admit that Obama was right and his methods helped to save this country? Or will you just find something else to gripe about?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:22pm

79. Not that I have anything against deferments...just can't stand the chickenhawks that so many on the right just SWOON over like schoolgirls.

    I always believed that in the case of the aptly named "Dick" Cheney, it was that Frigidaire of a wife of his that carried the family balls anyway.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/27/2009 @ 3:22pm

80. OR will you say he had nothing to do with it and the economy is not helped or hindered by the President?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:22pm

81. Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/27/2009 @ 3:22pm

    Dick Cheney loves sending people oversees to die, as long as it is not him or his family.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:23pm

82. How is that slander? That's exactly what you said. You claim he is only President because of affirmative action. It's only slander if it is a lie. Am I worth your time? I don't know, don't particularly care. I don't know what your last statement refers to. Some bigotted comment I guess. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about because you used that statement WAY out of context. Maybe you should stay away from using phrases you don't fully understand.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:13pm

    Your last chance!

    I did credit Magic's rise in part, due to AA. And you know that he admits to being helped by it.

    Now, prove where I said Your Messiah was "uneducated" or where I said McCain would "slaughter..that darky". $1,000 to your named charity for proof!

    IF not able to stand behind your own words, you're to back down from your impertinence by saying so here, or we are through!

    Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 3:24pm

83. overseas*

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:27pm

84. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:22pm |:

    If things turn out "peaches and cream" Obama will rightfully get the credit and my support. I must warn you that is a very big IF and the clock is ticking.

    As for your Cheney dig - it's too mornic to respond.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 3:31pm

85. "I did credit Magic's rise in part, due to AA. And you know that he admits to being helped by it. "

    He actually never admitted to being helped by it. He said he doesn't know if AA was used to his benefit. That is far from admitting that it helped him.

    "I have no way of knowing whether I was a beneficiary of affirmative action either in my admission to Harvard or my initial election to the Review."

    There is the exact quote.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:31pm

86. moronic :)

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 3:32pm

87. As for your Cheney dig - it's too mornic to respond.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 3:31pm

    How is it moronic? Did Cheney fight? Have his children?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:34pm

88. Your last chance!

    I did credit Magic's rise in part, due to AA. And you know that he admits to being helped by it.

    Now, prove where I said Your Messiah was "uneducated" or where I said McCain would "slaughter..that darky". $1,000 to your named charity for proof!

    IF not able to stand behind your own words, you're to back down from your impertinence by saying so here, or we are through!

    Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 3:24pm

    The problem is I can't pull up your quotes because your nick was banned since then. You know as well as I do, I can't PROVE it. Maybe Mask will oblige with some quotes from his database.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:35pm

89. Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 3:31pm

    I will hold you to the above pyeatte.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:35pm

90. Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 3:24pm

    If I'm wrong I'm wrong. We will have to wait for Mask.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:40pm

91. Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 3:24pm

    The problem is I can't pull up your quotes because your nick was banned since then. You know as well as I do, I can't PROVE it. Maybe Mask will oblige with some quotes from his database.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:35pm

    A cop-out! You likely know me well enough to know I didn't say what you accused me of since you obviously like to spar w/me far more than vice versa.

    FYI: All my nicks should have been restored under TN's blanket amnesty.

    Just search "HAPPY" since all my nicks contained it.

    $1,000 to your favorite charity! My condition stands....prove what you so manly stated or, retract, apology optional!

    Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 3:41pm

92. We will have to wait for Mask.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:40pm

    Oh, puleeeeze! MASK only serves the interest of the Dems/Libs and he is more an Obamite than any.....his being so verbose, like Magic!

    Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 3:42pm

93. Oh an also for all you people who have believed the fear mongering about the economic collapse that will happen because of the greens here is a little tid bit for you. Part of the reason American automakers are collapsing and Asian ones are sustaining is BECAUSE they didn't switch to greener automobiles. If they had started swapping over to making fuel efficient vehicles they would have been able to compete with Toyota and Honda. Instead they were making Suburbans and Tahoes.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:44pm

94. Oh, puleeeeze! MASK only serves the interest of the Dems/Libs and he is more an Obamite than any.....his being so verbose, like Magic!

    Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 3:42pm

    This is true but he has his quote databse which will be able to show exact quotes from you. Doesn't make a difference what his intentions are as long as the quote is accurate.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:45pm

95. $1,000 to your favorite charity! My condition stands....prove what you so manly stated or, retract, apology optional!

    Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 3:41pm

    Your nick is restored but that doesn't mean all your comments are back. It depends on how they control their websites. When they block a nick I don't think it just blocks it's comments from view I think it deletes the comments from the database. I searched a few posts for comments from you in that period and can't find anything at all not even your normal angry comments. I even searched your favorite phrase Happy Negro and can't find it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:49pm

96. "You likely know me well enough to know I didn't say what you accused me of since you obviously like to spar w/me far more than vice versa. "

    Lack of quality opponents to debate with does not equal a love of debating with you Happy. But I will allow you to continue your holier than though attitude while I chuckle to myself.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:50pm

97. errr "Magic Negro"

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:53pm

98. 1,000 to your favorite charity! My condition stands....prove what you so manly stated or, retract, apology optional!

    Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 3:41pm |

    I will both retract and apologize if it's found to be false. If it is found to be true donate the $1000 to cellphones for troops.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:56pm

99. I wait with bated breath for Mask.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 4:00pm

100. I will both retract and apologize if it's found to be false. If it is found to be true donate the $1000 to cellphones for troops.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:56pm

     And if MASK is silent, whether he ever sees these exchanges? I think you're more of a punk than I first thought!

     Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 5:35pm

101. "I think you're more of a punk than I first thought!"

     Think what you want. Your an anonymous person on a website. Your opinion means about as much to me as...well someone who has absoutely no bearing on my life. If he remains silent, which I doubt, then it will be a stalemate with no proof from either side. If you can quote yourself to disprove me I am more than welcoming to that kind of proof too. In the end your word means nothing more to me than mine means to you.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 5:59pm

102. Remember happy my insults don't matter to you because in the end I know nothing about you, which means in the end your insults and opinions mean nothing to me because you k ow absolutely nothing about me.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 6:02pm

103. How is it moronic? Did Cheney fight? Have his children?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:34pm

     But that's the whole point, it has never been a requirement in any way. The decision to fight is based on realities in the field. At any rate, Cheney never sent anyone anywhere. He was the VP not POTUS.

     You can hold me to that (other issue), but to be fair if the converse is true, will you flip?

     Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 6:19pm

104. ....mean nothing to me because you k ow absolutely nothing about me.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 6:02pm

     We participate here for one or more reasons...and credibility and integrity counts....more so to ourselves than anyone here. Whether I know anything about you is entirely immaterial.

     You're far too shallow....and it's not all your fault...let's call it your youth which is entirely the reason you seem to think you know a lot. Seeing as you're just not what I consider worthy of more time, I'll say goodbye!

     Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 6:30pm

105. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:49pm |

     "Your nick is restored but that doesn't mean all your comments are back. It depends on how they control their websites. When they block a nick I don't think it just blocks it's comments from view I think it deletes the comments from the database. I searched a few posts for comments from you in that period and can't find anything at all not even your normal angry comments. I even searched your favorite phrase Happy Negro and can't find it."

     Having just been 'banned' (I guess), I can tell you that the comments are still there, but are only viewable to the account that created them.

     I've been posting my usual screeds at Anti and Happy for two days with nary the usual reflexive response.

     I figured they'd at least tell me I was banned, but no such luck; I only twigged when the parental units came over to see the wife before she pops and mentioned the lack of posts.

     Try searching for a ` ...Happy's real signature...

     Buahahaha....I'm BACK, baby!

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/27/2009 @ 6:41pm

106. Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/27/2009 @ 3:22pm |

     I like the system laid out in Robert A. Heinlein's, "For Us the Living" to determine when and who will go to war:

     - Only after a popular vote > 50%

     - All voting 'yes' and draftable are inducted

     - Anyone voting 'yes' kicks in for the 'war supplemental'

     It would certainly dampen the imperial drive and the tendency to fight wars of aggression with other people's lives and money.

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/27/2009 @ 7:05pm

107. Fine with me you can run from real debate and hide behind the holier than though attitude and act as if you know anything about me. I can tell you that you are really no better than the average person here when it comes to integrity or credibility. I think most people who post here consider you to be a laugh. But that's just me, I could be wrong. Maybe you have become so enamored in your age that you now think YOU no more than you do. Age doesn't make you right happy.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 8:22pm

108. The planet will survive. We won't. The way to get the Senate to pass this bill is to scare the heck out of them. "Doomsday and how to stop it." Pictures of NYC underwater. Some scenes from "Mad Max." Get Gore and the slide show out. That scares me. Kucinich always wants something more radical. That's good, but nobody takes him seriously at all. They take Gore seriously. Now. Whether the bill is weak or not is not the point. It is a start, along with the higher emissions standards. We begin the journey to independence from fossil fuels and towards clean energy. It is always hard to begin. Refinements, changes, inventions(!)will come, but one has to make a start. This is a start. I am going to call the Senators and e-mail also beginning Monday. I urge all to do so rather than get in a snit about it is too weak for me to support, or somebody will lose a job or money. It is survival in the world as we know it that is at stake. We gotta fight for that through our political process, slow and ugly as that is.....

     Posted by jonnirae at 06/27/2009 @ 8:25pm

109. Dennis Baker penticton bc canada V2A6Z3 dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com RE : The solution to climate change. ( human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen ) The USA discharges Trillions of tons of sewage annually, sufficient quantity to sustain electrical generation requirements of the USA. Redirecting existing sewage systems to containment facilities would be a considerable infrastructure modification project. It is the intense radiation that causes the conversion of organic material into hydrogen, therefore what some would consider the most dangerous waste because of its radiation would be the best for this utilization. I believe the combination of clean water and clean air, will increase the life expectance of humans. yours sincerely Dennis Baker

     Posted by dennisearlbaker at 06/27/2009 @ 8:39pm

110. I post here for meaningful debate. With the people who aren't here to debate and just want to bludgeon people with their opinions I jus speak to them for a laugh.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 8:49pm

111. Oh and yes pyeatte I will do the same.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 8:51pm

112. Posted by Happy at 06/27/2009 @ 6:30pm

     LOL

     That's the pot calling the kettle black my friend.

     You have about as much integrity as the local crackhead.

     You said MANY MANY things during our past election, one of them being that McCain would definitely win the election (which you were wrong) and on more than one occasion you assured us that Hillary would receive the nomination.

     Just because you're senile doesn't mean the rest of us are.

     Posted by TexasFlood at 06/27/2009 @ 9:18pm

113. An article about the EPA suppressing a dissenting report from AGW skeptics:

     http://news.cnet.com/ 8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html

     The report itself...

     http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/ 0/DOC062509-004.pdf

     It doesn't change my opinion on the validity of AGW one iota, but I definitely hate to see the Obama admin committing the same types of censoring as Dubya's.

     Let it not be said that I am not in favor of vigorous debate!

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/27/2009 @ 9:23pm

114. Posted by TexasFlood at 06/27/2009 @ 9:18pm

     Guess I wasn't the only one who remembered those things.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 9:34pm

115. Let it not be said that I am not in favor of vigorous debate!"

     the problem is too that those tactics don't help yor side of the debate.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 9:36pm

116. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 9:36pm |

     Yes, as an AGW 'believer', I'd rather that these types of papers see the light of day and whither for being wrong than give the 'deniers' more ammunition for claiming it's a 'hoax', as if paranoids need the help.

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/27/2009 @ 10:09pm

117. AS ENVISIONED BY GOLDMAN, THE FIGHT TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING WILL BECOME A "CARBON MARKET" WORTH $1 TRILLION A YEAR.

     Gone are Hank Paulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm's co-head of finance) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits - a booming trillion-dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade.

     The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

     http://tinyurl.com/cap-n-bubble

     Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2009 @ 11:32pm

118. Face it, the reason you find it so unbelievable isn't because the science isn't there, it's that much like the rest of your particular brand of right, you resist anything that is not status quo. You fear any type of change so much that even if that change has the potential to destroy the very planet you stand on you refuse to believe in it. We have already established that even if Global Warming was incontrovertibly proven you would not believe in it.

     I think this is because you are too religious and therefore you believe only God has the power to destroy the world, not humans therefore it would shake your faith a little bit if humans actually had the power to destroy the world before judgment day.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 2:09pm

     If you had actually read any of my postings regarding green technology and change, you wouldn't make such an asnine comment.

     In fact you do know better because we have dialogued about my planning to start a solar business in El Salvador.

     And the rest of your comments just reveal that you slink back into your little far left world (which you deny, but your posts read differently) of ad hominem rather than debate.

     You don't come here for serious debate; you seldom debate. Mostly you just join the chorus of accusing conservatives of not thinking (or even being capable of such), and haters of science. All bogus charges.

     I was enjoying science before your mother was born. Over 50 years ago, I was building my own radios, repairing televisions and studying marine biology and astronomy with my father.

     I had read hundreds of science fiction books by Heinlein, Asimov, Harlan Ellison, Poul Anderson, and one of my fun favorites, Harry Harrison, by the mid 60's.

     I love both science and change.

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/27/2009 @ 11:32pm

119. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 2:09pm

     ....the rest of your comments just reveal that you slink back into your little far left world (which you deny, but your posts read differently) of ad hominem rather than debate.

     You don't come here for serious debate; you seldom debate....

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/27/2009 @ 11:32pm

     And CCC has developed a MASKish habit of sticking words in folk's mouth! Good riddence (for me)!

     MASK at least, will quote you from his archive even though his forte, is to quote you out-of-context......a tactic quite a few pundits use.

     Posted by Happy at 06/28/2009 @ 12:05am

120. Finally the climate change argument became so devisive that we washed our hands of it. And looked at the more natural limit to growth based largely on liquid motor fuel: oilfield depletion rates impossible to make up with new fields and technological priming of the old. To maintain at least a semblance of standard of living, we sought a model that used less energy/capita while delivering reasonable convenience, adequate nourishment and surface transport mobility equal to present.

     We need time to get replacement energy units flowing to fill the depletion gap, plus permit annual GNP (USA) growth of, say, 1.5%. The most likely model would include much more emphasis on railways. The US, a decade prior to the First World War, to the VietNam era, saw minimum oil imports. The growth of imported oil began after WWII, with the rapid growth in trucking and jump in private car ownership circa 1950. We want to take a close look at the way railways fit into the transport mix with cars, in that half-century.

     In the early 1920's, the railway mileage was at a maximum in the US, with well defined trunk mains, lateral branchlines to smaller towns. Added to the arterial main network, the Interurban Electric systems, often sharing track with downtown streetcar lines. Day passenger, night victuals and general freight, serving close-in warehousing with trucking interface. See books describing the Pacific Electric RR methodology, and you have it.

     Peaking Oil is the greater threat to poulations than climate, and dealing with Peaking Oil contains the climate problem. See Christopher C. Swan's "ELECTRIC WATER" (New Society Press, 2007) for compendium of doable now steps and hardware. See (peakoil.net) articles 374 & 1037. Recommission the Military RR Operating Battalions.

     Posted by tahoevalleylines at 06/28/2009 @ 02:20am

121. If you had actually read any of my postings regarding green technology and change, you wouldn't make such an asnine comment.

     In fact you do know better because we have dialogued about my planning to start a solar business in El Salvador.

     And the rest of your comments just reveal that you slink back into your little far left world (which you deny, but your posts read differently) of ad hominem rather than debate.

     You don't come here for serious debate; you seldom debate. Mostly you just join the chorus of accusing conservatives of not thinking (or even being capable of such), and haters of science. All bogus charges.

     I was enjoying science before your mother was born. Over 50 years ago, I was building my own radios, repairing televisions and studying marine biology and astronomy with my father.

     I had read hundreds of science fiction books by Heinlein, Asimov, Harlan Ellison, Poul Anderson, and one of my fun favorites, Harry Harrison, by the mid 60's.

     I love both science and change.

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/27/2009 @ 11:32pm

     You saying you are starting a green business is a bit different than you admitting to global warming. So that is in no way disproving what I said before.

     "And the rest of your comments just reveal that you slink back into your little far left world (which you deny, but your posts read differently) of ad hominem rather than debate."

     Are you kidding me. You insult more people on here than anyone. Does that make you far left? In fact it's funny that instead of presenting a rational argument you showed bigotry in the form of an ad hominem attack. I guess hypocrisy is a strong suit. Continued

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/28/2009 @ 04:44am

122. You don't come here for serious debate; you seldom debate. Mostly you just join the chorus of accusing conservatives of not thinking (or even being capable of such), and haters of science. All bogus charges.

     I have never said either. I have actually trumpeted the song for more good conservatives and lamented the death of the conservative movement. Me insulting YOU or HAPPY is not me insulting conservatives. I guess you can't see the difference when you constantly use phrases like "Like all liberals" or "Typical liberal"

     "I was enjoying science before your mother was born. Over 50 years ago, I was building my own radios, repairing televisions and studying marine biology and astronomy with my father."

     Aside from the point that just because you enjoy science for a longtime does not give you automatic correctness because you are in not a climatologist so that has no bearing on the debate whatsoever. My mother is older than 50. So apparently you also haven't been enjoying science before my mother was born. Again don't act like you know me, since you have in the past complained about me doing it to you.

     "I love both science and change."

     Which is why I find it funny that you choose to close your eyes to the possiblity of global warming rather than saying ok maybe it's a possibility lets dig for more evidence because the evidence you guys trumpet to the person who is on the fence is JUST as shaky as the other sides evidence. You have just fully vested yourself in an ideology which has even less proof than the one it is attempting to disprove.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/28/2009 @ 04:49am

123. And CCC has developed a MASKish habit of sticking words in folk's mouth! Good riddence (for me)!

     MASK at least, will quote you from his archive even though his forte, is to quote you out-of-context......a tactic quite a few pundits use.

     Posted by Happy at 06/28/2009 @ 12:05am

     I guess happy doesn't like the fact that not only did I peg it right I was backed up by another poster as well. Hmm. Whatever. I guess liars are always as such.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/28/2009 @ 04:50am

124. Posted by antisocialist at 06/27/2009 @ 11:32pm

     If you want to have a rational and logical fact based debate I will be more than happy to. But as long as every debate I have with you ends up with you just saying "Oh you are a typical leftist" or "Oh, you are just young and can't understand" then what is the point? You like Happy have a superiorty complex because you are on the right therefore you believe I can't possibly know anything about anything and because you are older than therefore you think your age makes you right and me wrong.

     You think because you are older than me that you grasp of the science of this is somehow better but in the end you are no more qualified in this field of science than I am. Or anyone here is for that matter. But like I said you guys have determined the game to be played. Anytime I question you too much you and Happy both resort to insults instead of rational debate which is why I don't bother actually debating. However if you would like to debate the science I will be happy to debate with you. Like I said I'm on the fence but I will do my best.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/28/2009 @ 04:54am

125. Posted by antisocialist at 06/27/2009 @ 11:32pm

     Oh and by the way, if you truly have an appreciation of science you will understand that this statement:

     "I was enjoying science before your mother was born. Over 50 years ago, I was building my own radios, repairing televisions and studying marine biology and astronomy with my father."

     Is tripe. Science is based on fact and evidence not age and experience. This isn't a philosophical debate. A scientist who is 15 can in the end win out against a scientist who is 75 if the 15 year old has facts on their side. A debate of science has nothing to do with age. A debate of science has to do with who has looked at and digested the EVIDENCE.

     But of course this is once again an example of you attacking something easy, my age, instead of attacking facts.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/28/2009 @ 05:04am

126. Posted by Happy at 06/28/2009 @ 12:05am

     Or maybe it's the fact that someone less than half his age had to teach him the meaning of the word bigotry?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/28/2009 @ 05:06am

127. Posted by Happy at 06/28/2009 @ 12:05am |

     "And CCC has developed a MASKish habit of sticking words in folk's mouth! Good riddence (for me)!"

     "Most Libs have no idea what `overhead' and fixed costs are. They actually think 31% of insurance co. revenues are `wasted', as if the Gubbers can run sungle-payer without any `waste'"

     Whatever, hip-o-creet.

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/28/2009 @ 08:10am

128. I guess happy doesn't like the fact that not only did I peg it right I was backed up by another poster as well. Hmm. Whatever. I guess liars are always as such. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/28/2009 @ 04:50am |

     I thought everyone here knew that Happy was so full of it that we could put a wind-farm in front of him and generate gigawatts.

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/28/2009 @ 08:16am

129. Did nobody else catch this?

     "9,000,000,000 unemployed running out of benifits are not intrested in cap and trade that will eliminate not just jobs but businesses that provide them!"----Posted by BigPasture at 06/27/2009 @ 01:26am

     Apparently RIO has the ENTIRE population of the ENTIRE planet...in the year 2020...unemployed.

     LOL

     Posted by Mask at 06/28/2009 @ 09:25am

130. Posted by Mask at 06/28/2009 @ 09:25am |

     Happy will use it to blame `Magic' for the 3000% unemployment rate.

     Posted by Graham_Madarasz at 06/28/2009 @ 09:47am

131. one of the biggests myths about this climate bill is that it will transfer wealth to the public sector. nothing could be further from the truth.

     this is a huge transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to goldman sachs, actually.

     read matt taibi's article in rolling stone to find out.

     Posted by darladoon at 06/28/2009 @ 09:49am

132. "Adding insult and hypocrisy to injury, the bill would hurt the poor the worst because they would bear a disproportionate burden of the higher energy costs the bill would trigger."

     actually, the opposite is true.

     but who really cares?

     this bill sucks, and not for the reasons conservatives think it sucks.

     Posted by darladoon at 06/28/2009 @ 09:50am

133. Frosty linked the Taibi article above...

     http://tinyurl.com/cap-n-bubble

     Posted by TheReallyMadScientist at 06/28/2009 @ 10:01am

134. #1 myth about obama:

     that he is different from bush

     Posted by darladoon at 06/28/2009 @ 10:15am

135. #1 oddity about obama:

     why conservatiaves don't cheer him on (since he is no different than bush).

     or why conservatives weren't all over bush for doing the same things obama is doing now.

     Posted by darladoon at 06/28/2009 @ 10:24am

136. Posted by TheReallyMadScientist at 06/28/2009 @ 10:01am |

     So I get the "cap'n'trade is really prohibition and Gary Gensler is Al Capone" routine, but won't it be fairly easy to defeat their bubblicious plans by...

     ...actually conserving energy?

     Perhaps the opportunity to punk Goldman-Sachs is exactly the motivation we need.

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/28/2009 @ 10:37am

137. darladoon:

     Very interesting points you make about bush and obama and the way they are perceived... I wish all Americans could see more clearly.

     Posted by Tiger2Lover at 06/28/2009 @ 12:30pm

138. We still have not seen a copy of the bill (dem, rep or the public). Does anyone know the website where the "secret bills" are kept?

     Posted by pyeatte at 06/28/2009 @ 1:46pm

139. Posted by pyeatte at 06/28/2009 @ 1:46pm |

     http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c111RPJuCp::

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/28/2009 @ 1:56pm

140. They don't call it the Congressional Record for nada.

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/28/2009 @ 1:57pm

141. I gather that most of the permits to pollute will be given away to the polluters, another "enclosure" of the commons. Since the commons is owned by everyone equally, this aspect of the bill is nothing but a transfer of wealth & income from all to a few in order to accomplish little or nothing on the climate front.

     The only "good" thing about this legislation is that it further illustrates the distance we've traveled toward plutocracy and the willingness of "liberals" to accept crumbs from the corporate table. But the truth is, we didn't need any more evidence.

     Posted by fragen at 06/28/2009 @ 2:01pm

142. Sorry, that link doesn't stay...you'll need to start from this query...

     http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ query/z?c111:H.R.2454:

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/28/2009 @ 2:08pm

143. You kind of read my mind. I was sitting there laughing at the though of someone who so fervently believes in a religion without any actual proof of the existence of God chastising others for something that at least has some scientific evidence to debate. Hehe. You just attacked when I stayed my hand.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 2:17pm

     But of course this is once again an example of you attacking something easy, my age, instead of attacking facts.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/28/2009 @ 05:04am

     As shown, you repeatedly attack me for supposedly being anti-science. Like most leftists here, you stereotype conservatives as being against and ignorant of science, especially those of us who have deeply held views of faith.

     My point about my early involvement with science and even the entire realm of science fiction was not about age, but that it has been a lifelong experience.

     As shown by the 2 examples above, you repeated post a disdain for people of faith like myself, suggesting that we are unwilling or incapable of objective examination of evidence. That is where your immaturity surfaces along with your bigotry against conservatives.

     And perhaps you could provide some evidence where you have ever posted positives about conservativism since you claim to have those "fair" objectives? I certainly don't recall any.

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/28/2009 @ 2:57pm

144. Once again you get your judgments about me wrong. My grandparents on both sides are deeply religious and I love them and their beliefs. I have friends who are deeply religious. You just like to play the victim because it obscures the need to for rational argument. Once again Larry your judgement about mr prove to be wrong because you know noting about me. And once again you prove to be a hypocrite in trying to make judgments about me while you have complained about others for doing the same.

     It was my grandparents who told me Santa wasn't real when I was a kid bcause Christmas was supposed to be about our savior the lord Jesus Christ not about Santa clause. I will post my positive remarks about conservatives when I get home. I am on my phone right now.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/28/2009 @ 3:25pm

145. Oh and by the way Larry remember. I have defended even you from what I considered unfair insults in the past.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/28/2009 @ 3:32pm

146. I won't be home tonight but as a reminder the last time I truly paid a compliment tote conservative movement as whole was in the thread about how the conservative movement is making itself irrelevant. I lamented the loss if the conervative movement, and hoped that they would get their acts together and make themselves relevant again. I will look for th quotes tomorrow night.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/28/2009 @ 7:30pm

147. I won't be home tonight but as a reminder the last time I truly paid a compliment tote conservative movement as whole was in the thread about how the conservative movement is making itself irrelevant. I lamented the loss if the conervative movement, and hoped that they would get their acts together and make themselves relevant again. I will look for th quotes tomorrow night.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/28/2009 @ 7:31pm

148. And perhaps you could provide some evidence where you have ever posted positives about conservativism since you claim to have those "fair" objectives? I certainly don't recall any. Posted by antisocialist at 06/28/2009 @ 2:57pm |

     Here's a couple. They:

     - know a balanced budget is a good thing

     - support individualism / personal responsibility

     - defend their country (or believe they are, Cheney)

     - are pro-growth / business (though often via bubbles)

     Now I don't feel these attributes are solely the purvey of conservatives, but they are the principles of conservatives with which I often agree.

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/28/2009 @ 8:21pm

149. All this back-and-forth snarkiness, and not a single reply to lnh for a thoughtful and valid post. Too bad.

     Posted by lnh at 06/27/2009 @ 2:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Also, what ever happened to truth in advertising? Why isn't this bill named the "Carbon Tax of 2009 Act"?

     Posted by twillie at 06/28/2009 @ 9:02pm

150. My point about my early involvement with science and even the entire realm of science fiction was not about age, but that it has been a lifelong experience. Posted by antisocialist at 06/28/2009 @ 2:57pm

     Larry's first inquiry into science as a young fascist.

     Larry: "Look Darin! If I pull four legs off of this spider on the right side, it runs in a clockwise direction. And if I pull four legs off of this other spider on the left side it runs in a counterclockwise direction."

     Darin: "Great Larry! Now we can play crash the spiders!"

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 09:38am

151. Also, what ever happened to truth in advertising? Why isn't this bill named the "Carbon Tax of 2009 Act"?

     Posted by twillie at 06/28/2009 @ 9:02pm

     The biggest problem is, (other than totally clueless people like you) is that the Waxman-Markey bill does not go anywhere near far enough and does not learn the lessons of other countries where it concerns cap and trade.

     In this screwed up bill 85% of the cap credits above the emission allowance are free. ???? I don't get this, since the EU did this same messed up crap when it first introduced cap and trade. They now say that was the single biggest mistake they ever made.

     Do these dolts in Congress read? This is pretty much common knowledge.

     As for it being a "Carbon Tax Bill", Twillie. Of course it is you dolt. That is the whole purpose for Christ sake...

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 10:03am

152. Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 09:38am |

     S'ok...those spiders were declared 'enemy combatants'.

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 10:04am

153. So now we have the EPA, which long ago gave up the mantle of science to take up the cloak of politics. Seems the EPA suppressed a valid study showing the current political theories on man-made global warming do not stand up to the physical evidence dug up by er "science". Seems there is this smoking gun directive (memo) written by an administrator demanding not to release this because it would be a serious roadblock to the political agenda of the administration (birth-of-a-scandle). Meanwhile, back in the house of loons, the morons in congress again vote on legislation they have not read - these shameful people should be tared and feathered and run out of town on a rail (to borrow an old phrase). You know, if you cannot read 1300 page bills, don't write them.

     Posted by pyeatte at 06/29/2009 @ 10:08am

154. Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 10:03am:

     "does not learn the lessons of other countries where it concerns cap and trade."??

     In a twisted way you are right, because if they had learned the ugly lessons Spain, England and a few other countries in Europe have learned, they would have voted this pile of s... down, horse whipped the idiots who wrote it and tossed them in Gitmo for trying to perpetrate terrorism on the American public.

     Posted by pyeatte at 06/29/2009 @ 10:16am

155. And if Obamabush is so in favor of cap and trade, then why does he expound the silly idea of "Clean Coal". There is no such thing. In fact a true cap and trade bill would shortly put the coal industry out of business. Thank the God's. It would become way less competitive and force more investment in Green Energy.

     But Obama has a coal industry hand in his pocket, and it is tickling his balls.

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 10:16am

156. Posted by pyeatte at 06/29/2009 @ 10:08am |

     I linked that above...

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/27/2009 @ 9:23pm |

     ...those who appreciate humor will note that the writer of the paper had his first job at the RAND corporation.

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 10:20am

157. Posted by pyeatte at 06/29/2009 @ 10:16am

     You are so far out in right field that you may as well just play catch with yourself. If you know what I mean..

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 10:20am

158. Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 10:16am |

     The decade of blackouts between the death of coal and the birth of green energy capacity would be rough on us though.

     So what were the horrible side-effects of not auctioning all the offsets from the get go?

     It seems that they will be phased out over time...as in a graceful transition to the 'new world order' of carbon taxation instead of a step-function which will plunge us further into...well...you, Chaos.

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 10:25am

159. The decade of blackouts between the death of coal and the birth of green energy capacity would be rough on us though. Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 10:25am

     What will be really rough on us is if we keep taking half assed measures on climate change. Would you rather have a little rough now, or virtual annihilation later?

     And believe me a quick transition to green energy will be a shock at first. But would rapidly evolve into many green technologies and the job's that come with them. We are more adaptable than you give us credit for. When faced with the loss of all our heroin like dependencies on fossil fuels, we will reach out with gusto and embrace new technologies.

     Look at the EU, they are already doing it. And nothing is ever as painful as we think it is.

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 10:36am

160. "That is where your immaturity surfaces along with your bigotry against conservatives"

     there's no such thing as bigotry against conservatives.

     Posted by darladoon at 06/29/2009 @ 10:42am

161. The thing is, all things are interdependant. Like healthcare, sane trade policies, public education and publically funded elections.

     All these things must be addressed in order for any one of them to work.

     And the sad part is, we don't have a president or a congress that is capable of dealing with these very real and vital issues.

     But my optimisim turns to dread. Because the only way to get there is to purge the system. And that responsibility now lies with the people. And the people are confused, brainwashed and complacent. Not willing to sacrifice because they don't see from what direction the danger comes.

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 10:47am

162. Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 10:36am |

     I agree with you; I'm a 'jump in the pool, not one toe at a time' type of person, and I'm on-board with the windfarms, solar, etc

     I'm really jazzed by the prospects for space-based solar with u-wave beaming to ground ala Solaren out here in CA. Another Asimov invention being put to use.

     But there's a point to be considered in that the people currently digging that nasty black stuff from the ground may not be the best candidates for installing photovoltaic cells on people's roofs or building parts for turbines; there's more to it than simply number of jobs created.

     I just think our 'habit' will be easier to kick if we use the methadone for a bit.

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 10:48am

163. I just think our 'habit' will be easier to kick if we use the methadone for a bit.

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 10:48am

     The point I was trying to make is that there is no time for methadone. No cozy withdrawal from the poison. The patient may die in withdrawal going cold turkey or comes out none the worse for wear and much wiser.

     What I'm trying to say is that it is already too late for that. Maybe 25 or 30 years ago. But as usual human nature waits until it hits rock bottom before it does anything. And then the cure is as bad as the disease.

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 11:05am

164. For instance how many US planes have been taken down in Iraq to date due to enemies?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:54pm

     I read an article recently that said the US Air Force is training more drone pilots than actual airplane pilots now. They fly their missions in Afghanistan from a base in Las Vegas. Drop a bomb and 60 minutes later, you can be on the casino floor.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/29/2009 @ 11:05am

165. Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 11:05am |

     Okay, intervention it is; you get the ankles, I'll get the wrists... :)

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 11:09am

166. Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 10:48am

     Another thought in that analogy is that once you are hooked on methadone, there is no going back. The drug is so addictive and so strong that you are on "methadone maintenance" for life. I don't know how far that analogy holds true, but I think it goes far enough to make a point.

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 11:14am

167. Okay, intervention it is; you get the ankles, I'll get the wrists... :)

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 11:09am

     O.K., I got the ankles (gee thanks). But it will take a majority of Americans to assist. This addict has the power of money and influence. And those forces will be trying to cut the restraints.

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 11:20am

168. Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 11:20am |

     Why "thanks"? I got the bitey half!

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-GqTr8THJg

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 11:24am

169. Why "thanks"? I got the bitey half!

     True enough. I didn't consider that. Maybe some ductape?

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 11:27am

170. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:30pm

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:52pm

     This may be a distinction without a difference, but I believe the tone of my comments is different from that of Happy and Anti, etc.

     I do not believe it is a hoax. I do not believe it is a scam. I believe that Al Gore and the rest of his followers truly believes the 1.8 degre rise in temp over the twentieth century was causee by human activity.

     I also believe they are mistaken.

     I made this point last week: At it's root, the financial crisis was caused by flawed computer models that "everyone" belived. Guasian copulas was the mathematic formula for modeling mortgage defaults. Virtually everyone in the finance industry believed this assumption and resulting models and the price of securities was determined by it. Then reality happened and the correlation of mortgage defaults was much, much higher than predicted by the computer models meaning the price of the securities was far, far too high.

     People are susceptible to believing models that tell them their assets are worth more. People are also susceptible to believing apocalyptic, sky is falling, doomsday scenarios. I fell for one when I was in college that turned out to be wrong.

     In Earth's history, CO2 concentration levels have been as high as 3% and this didn't cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Currently, the concentration is 0.3% up from 0.2%. Scientists have model that show this is responsible for all of the warming, even though CO2 accounts for less than 5% of all greehouse gasses. And humans account for a small percentage of CO2 production with volcanoes dwarfing anything man has done.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/29/2009 @ 11:31am

171. Why "thanks"? I got the bitey half! True enough. I didn't consider that. Maybe some ductape? Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 11:27am |

     Think "Wild Kingdom"...tranq darts...gotta up the dosage to account for their tolerance though.

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 11:33am

172. Further, the weather patterns of earth are at root, 100,000 ice ages punctuated by 10,000 year warm spells. The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Over the last 10,000 years, the "average" temp has fluctuated by more than 5 degrees.

     I think humans have a propencity to presuppose significance to anything they can observe. Astrology is the study of retrograde motion of the planets. Back when we thought the sun revolved around the earth, the strange patterns of the planets had to mean you were a great lover or were destined to die in battle. If fact it was just something we could observe, but didn't have the mathmatics to explain.

     We've observed a slight change in temperature and our first instict is to assume we caused it so we look for an explanation and we can create a model that blames it all on CO2. Within a few years, we will get more data and find out that it is not CO2.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/29/2009 @ 11:37am

173. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/29/2009 @ 11:31am |

     First, a nitpick: the guy's name was "Gauss"...the distributions are Gaussian, and the Copula (truth in advertising!) are based on said distributions.

     Which leads to a math joke: "One can easily show...yes, one can, Gauss, by name".

     Some science to ponder for you:

     http://www.skepticalscience.com/ human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

     When the CO2 was 3%, we had room in our ocean sinks and a lot more vegetation to gobble it up.

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 11:39am

174. Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 11:39am

     Here is a funny. Check it out..

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhpUG4apgrE

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 11:54am

175. Tillie, since you seem be to be the only one reading these posts for understanding, I will adress my comments to you. I lived thru the creation of the GW phenomena. It did not come out of climatology departments. It was a marriage of convenience. Nixon was hostile to NASA and kept slashing their budget. They were being called on to justify their research. NASA even had a team within the Technology Utilization office which was dedicated to looking at ways that NASA's research helped the general public. Several researchers observed that the elevation of Venus's temperature as a result of a great deal of CO2 in it's atmosphere might be important in understanding pollution on earth. At this time the public was becoming increasingly wary of nuclear power. It was expensive. After 3 mile island, the industry was desparate. An alliance was born. The original researchers into GW knew nothing about climate. They did not look at climate change data and ask why. They had an mechanism and they sought to justify it. The real research into man made climate change at this time focued on aerosols, changes in albedo and heat capacity. The real danger was clearcutting and introduction of agribusiness into the tropics. Most of the research was funded by UNESCO.

     Notice that if the main culprit in climate change is switched from poor land use to CO2, agribusiness goes from being a villian to a hero. They can now clearcut the tropics and plant genetically modified crops to produce biofuels and collect subsidies. You now have a powerfull confederacy with a huge financial incentive to prove GW. Then add in every developer of a technology that was supposed to produce energy but can never do so economically.

     Posted by lnh at 06/29/2009 @ 12:00pm

176. Posted by lnh at 06/29/2009 @ 12:00pm |

     Does not the 'heat island' effect of clear-cutting etc exacerbate the problem with CO2 uptake imbalance...changing a minor problem into a major one?

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 12:12pm

177. Posted by lnh at 06/29/2009 @ 12:00pm

     First off, Tillie twillie does not read posts for understanding of anything other than where to insert a talking point that was given to it by who knows who.

     And secondly, I rarely read a post full of as much gobble de goop as the one you just posted. How do you expect anyone to understand irony when it is couched in an obfuscated and self serving post.

     It did Twillster no good and it certainly did me no good. Seems like a zero sum game to me.

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 12:14pm

178. The nation has moved on to other posts made by their bloggers. This one is dead. No CPR necessary.

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 12:18pm

179. Good work, John. Dennis K. is right on as usual. Somebody really needs to do a strong detailed rebuttal to Kimberly Strassel's slippery article in the WSJ.(see above) It is filled with halftruths, confusing allusions & misinformation- as is to be expected from one of the leading Right - wingers of this noble journal. I have neither the scientific expertise nor time to pull it off. It is a very dangerous piece. Peace, Father Paul

     Posted by paulmayer at 06/29/2009 @ 12:23pm

180. If you subtract out the heat island effect from the hockey stick, there isn't much left for the greenhouse effect to explain. That's why Hansen spent so much time attacking the heat island effect.

     Posted by lnh at 06/29/2009 @ 12:50pm

181. Posted by lnh at 06/29/2009 @ 12:50pm |

     Can you point me at some papers that quantify how UHI leads to 0.6C?

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 1:06pm

182. Somebody really needs to do a strong detailed rebuttal to Kimberly Strassel's slippery article in the WSJ.(see above) It is filled with halftruths, confusing allusions & misinformation-

     Posted by paulmayer at 06/29/2009 @ 12:23pm

     She didn't say anthing about the science behind warming. She reported on the political responses in half a dozen countries. Are you saying the lied about what other contries are doing with respect to legislation and that's was needs correcting?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/29/2009 @ 1:11pm

183. "That is where your immaturity surfaces along with your bigotry against conservatives"

     there's no such thing as bigotry against conservatives.

     Posted by darladoon at 06/29/2009 @ 10:42am

     that's a keeper..

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/29/2009 @ 1:17pm

184. I'm amazed that this thread has run on this long. Hey skeptics: I admire your stamina, but you're not going to impress me until:

     (1) you come up with an alternate explanation for the observed changes in our global climate over the last 50 years, and

     (2) at least a sizable minority among the world's scientists comes around to accept this explanation.

     I don't believe this is going to happen before this thread goes stone cold.

     Speaking of "stone cold," I don't believe the North Pole qualifies as a "heat island," but the effects of global climate change manifest themselves very clearly here -- in the form of increased summer melting.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 06/29/2009 @ 2:02pm

185. Posted by JakobFabian at 06/29/2009 @ 2:02pm |

     Now WTF does Stone Cold Steve Austin have to do with GW...oh, the hot air from the pre-wrestling smack-talking...gotcha.

     The 'heat island' argument isn't a "we're not warming" argument or an "it's not humans" argument as much as an "it isn't greenhouse gases doing the warming" argument.

     I find it's always good to nail down what the other contributing factors might be, though I agree with the cabal of climate scientists (whom I'm sure are living like kings on the kickbacks they've received from Goldman-Sachs for their silence).

     Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 4:13pm

186. I read an article recently that said the US Air Force is training more drone pilots than actual airplane pilots now. They fly their missions in Afghanistan from a base in Las Vegas. Drop a bomb and 60 minutes later, you can be on the casino floor.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/29/2009 @ 11:05am

     See, how is that bravery? You are flying a remote control plane against a target who will never even see you.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 4:14pm

187. "This may be a distinction without a difference, but I believe the tone of my comments is different from that of Happy and Anti, etc."

     Actually it is very different. You are debating facts instead of saying something like it's a "hoax" drummed up by the leftist media to bring a socialist coup.

     "In Earth's history, CO2 concentration levels have been as high as 3% and this didn't cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Currently, the concentration is 0.3% up from 0.2%. Scientists have model that show this is responsible for all of the warming, even though CO2 accounts for less than 5% of all greehouse gasses. And humans account for a small percentage of CO2 production with volcanoes dwarfing anything man has done.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/29/2009 @ 11:31am "

     This is a perfectly legitimate fact. But what you are missing is that it is not only CO2 that humans are generating. Nitrogen caused by farmland is a massively generated gas. So is water vapor from many many different activities. So, although CO2 is the main focus of most of the arguments CO2 is not the main culprit of human cause. We also forget about huge methane deposits that are being released. And then as the icebergs tend to recede that decrease the reflectivity of the ocean causing ocean waters to warm faster which then increase the global temperature.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 4:20pm

188. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/29/2009 @ 11:31am

     Here is a the counter argument to your supposition that the models are inaccurate.

     http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 4:31pm

189. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/29/2009 @ 11:31am

     http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

     And that is an article about the assertion that we are in a warming cooling cycle. Basically it states that the facts are shaky at best. The people who most accurately studied the cycle said that no conclusions can actually be drawn from their studies because the models are inaccurate. Which was one of your arguments against global warming models.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 4:34pm

190. See, how is that bravery? You are flying a remote control plane against a target who will never even see you.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 4:14pm

     I wasn't saying it was brave. I was agreeing with you. You said that Bush 41 didn't count because he was just flying over. I was just pointing out that it is even less "intimate" today.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/29/2009 @ 5:25pm

191. First off, Tillie twillie does not read posts for understanding of anything other than where to insert a talking point that was given to it by who knows who. And secondly, I rarely read a post full of as much gobble de goop as the one you just posted. How do you expect anyone to understand irony when it is couched in an obfuscated and self serving post.

     It did Twillster no good and it certainly did me no good. Seems like a zero sum game to me. Posted by chaoszen at 06/29/2009 @ 12:14pm

     Speak for yourself, chaoszen. Why don't you run along to a less mentally demanding thread. But before you do, why don't you expound on how you propose to transition our fossil fuel based economy to a wind and solar based economy, in, say, 5 years. Feel free to include how you will get around the laws of thermodynamics.

     Posted by twillie at 06/29/2009 @ 6:16pm

192. I wasn't saying it was brave. I was agreeing with you. You said that Bush 41 didn't count because he was just flying over. I was just pointing out that it is even less "intimate" today.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/29/2009 @ 5:25pm

     Oh my comment was an agreeance. Not a rebuttal. Sorry if it had that tone.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 6:50pm

193. Posted by lnh at 06/29/2009 @ 12:00pm

     You bring up a good point. Scientists spend alot of time looking for, and renewing, grants. When you say in your conclusion, "everything's OK here", you have a much harder time renewing a grant, than if you say, "this data raises questions that require further research". That doesn't mean that scientists are engaging in fraud when they talk up AGW. It just means that if you ask 2 questions for every one you answer, the grants will flow. Suggesting AGW is a problem that requires much more study advances science, and science funding. Concluding that it is just part of the normal climate cycle does not advance science.

     Posted by twillie at 06/29/2009 @ 7:04pm

194. Fact- the earth experienced it's greatest expansion of life when CO2 levels were 8X the current levels. It was 6 degrees C warmer then also, so what's all the hysteria about. Are we afraid that the earth may once again flourish. Fact- more CO2 is spewed into the atomosphere during one large volcanic eruption than all the carbon-based fuels burnt in the US for an entire year. Considering we are the largest user of carbon-based fuels this would lead a sane person to believe that anthropogenic climate change is a fallacy. For those who still believe, remember that many acedemians believed the world was flat and argued that those early scientists who argued otherwise were witches and/or heathens, similar to the kooks and industry scientists of today. History proved who was the kooks.

     Global climate change alarmists = Flatearthers of the middle ages Both are/were establishmentarians.

     Posted by liberty4all at 06/30/2009 @ 6:07pm

195. Suggesting AGW is a problem that requires much more study advances science, and science funding. Concluding that it is just part of the normal climate cycle does not advance science.

     Posted by twillie at 06/29/2009 @ 7:04pm | ignore this person | warn

     You left out the conclusion to the statement which should have been...does not advance science or gain more FUNDING!

     Posted by liberty4all at 06/30/2009 @ 6:11pm