Climate Bill Kickoff
Henry Waxman and Edward Markey unveil sweeping climate change legislation. The green crowd goes wild.
On the first day, Henry Waxman created a draft. And the enviros said it was good.
Rep. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has promised to deliver comprehensive climate change legislation to President Obama within the year. On Tuesday, the California congressman, along with Rep. Edward Markey, released a "discussion draft" of what is currently being called the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. It's a piece of legislation that could dramatically reshape the country's energy economy.
The 648-page draft legislation, which addresses virtually every aspect of the fight against global warming, was quickly embraced by green groups.
The bill would require "retail electricity suppliers" (that is, utility companies) to get 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. It seeks stronger fuel standards for cars, paves the way for the development of a smart electricity grid, and provides financial incentives to retailers who sell high volumes of energy-efficient appliances. It creates grants for universities and colleges to develop curricula that will train a generation of professionals ready to work in renewable energy and climate change mitigation. And it instructs the labor secretary to create training programs that help workers from dying industries transition into ones bolstered by the bill.
The legislation creates a National Climate Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that will lead climate change research in the future, and directs every federal agency to review the impact of climate change on matters within their jurisdictions. The draft bill requires the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to create a national strategy for dealing with the public health effects of climate change, and creates an international program within the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to provide assistance to developing countries most vulnerable to the negative effects of global warming.
A central and controversial part of the bill is its cap-and-trade program. Under it, electric utilities, oil companies, and large industrial manufacturers, which produce roughly 85 percent of the nation's global warming emissions, will have to secure federal permits for their pollution. The pollution limits in those permits will be lowered every year until, in 2050, they are 83 percent below 2005 levels. The bill does not specify whether permits will be sold or given to corporations for free. It also does not say what the resulting revenue will be used for if the permits are in fact sold. (The Obama administration, for its part, had planned on selling the permits and using the revenues to fund renewable energy research, among other climate change imperatives.)
Initial reviews of the draft legislation by environmental groups have been positive. "The Waxman-Markey draft bill is a strong start and is a testament to their decades of leadership on clean energy and other environmental issues," said Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club, in a statement. "This bill combines the right mix of policies and the long-term vision necessary to build the green economy that will pull us out of the current economic crisis."
Lance Pierce, who directs the Union of Concerned Scientists' climate program, called the draft "a truly comprehensive outline." He added, "This broad approach is the best way to promote renewable energy sources, curb our oil dependence, and avoid the most expensive consequences of climate change." An analysis by Pierce's group indicates that a renewable electricity standard similar to the one in the bill would create 297,000 new domestic jobs and save consumers $64.3 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills by 2025.
The Environmental Defense Fund, Environment America, and the League of Conservation Voters all put out statements saying they "applaud" the draft bill.
Even the polluters got on board. The United States Climate Action Partnership—a group that represents Ford, GM, Chrysler, Alcoa, BP, PG&E, Shell, and other industry giants—said in a statement that it "hails the discussion draft" as "a strong starting point." Two reasons why some of the nation's biggest polluters might be on board: a virtually unlimited amount of pollution offsets, which will essentially allow corporations to buy their way past the cap-and-trade system's pollution limits, and federal promotion of research into "clean coal."
An offset means that a corporation or other entity that produces emissions in excess of the federally mandated cap can purchase pollution credits from firms that came in under the limit. "Under the cap, there are 2 billion tons of offsets allowed," said Steven Biel, who heads Greenpeace's global warming campaign. "That is a big fat loophole waiting to be exploited. The total emissions reductions required under the cap 20 years from now are still less than 2 billion tons."
Biel suggested that Greenpeace will seek to modify the offset provision as the bill moves forward. He wants zero offsets. "The whole idea behind an offset is to say, 'In order protect trees in Brazil, we need to trade those trees for smokestacks in Ohio.' Our position, and I think the position of anyone who is not looking at this from the perspective of a coal company, is that we need to move forward as aggressively as possible to transition America to a clean energy economy and protect those forests at the same time."
The federal support for coal capture and sequestration—a technology of debatable plausibility that, if successful, would enable coal plants to operate with low emissions—will likely be popular in coal-producing areas (and with lawmakers that represent those locales). However, it has environmental groups wary. "This is a straight surcharge fee for every American on your electric bill to pay for this unproven, hypothetical technology that has never been shown to work," said Biel. "That money could be used for smarter renewable energy technologies."
Despite his reservations, Biel echoes the enthusiasm of the rest of his colleagues in the environmental community when speaking of the bill overall. "There are a lot of really strong elements here to build on. The draft bill is a good first step."
Page 1 of 1 
Says it
Says it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf69EEL3WBk
A Man Bear Pig, Red Baron?
A Man Bear Pig, Red Baron? To be honest, I'm not following, lol.
But hey, I'm all for going green, so, as I'm a part of that group, I'm jumping for joy to hear this news. I really do feel, throughout all of the press and rumors, that Obama is exactly what America needs. I have very high hopes!
- Julie, Resveratrol Researcher
AGW is a HOAX
This a complete and absolute waste of our money! Man Made Global Warming, Anthropogenic Global warming, noe Climate Change is a HOAX. Average annual temps have not surpassed 1998. The Argo bouys show no warming of the oceans, but actually a slight decrease. Gore's film was deemed propganda in a court of law in the UK. CO2 is not a pollutant! It is currently 380 parts per million, it cannot impact temps like they are proposing. It was 7000 parts per million in the Cambrian era when life FLORISHED! STOP this insanity! FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!!!!
John is stretching a little
Life flourished during the Cambrian?? I don't think comparing much of what happened HALF A BILLION years ago in terms of ecosystems will apply today - especially since EVERYTHING LIVED IN THE OCEAN BACK THEN and the land was still all one continent. At the most fundamental level, climate was an entirely different beast back then and life was entirely different. If we were naturally headed for 7000 ppm and it took tens of millions of years to get there it would not be a big deal. The problem is the rate of change we have created though manmade emission is so much greater than the rate of change of natural climate change that it will create a huge dieoff as the entire planet scrables to cope and adapt. It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden change of direction at the end.
Really?
-
tagged as:
- solution
Okay, let's do an experiment. Go into your Garage, shut the door and start a lawn mower, car or any other type of CO2 emitting, gasoline- or diesel-based engine.
When you walk across a city street, behind huge trucks with black exhaust coming out, is that healthy?
Follow the money? Yes, follow the primitive technologies that have been exploiting the earth for ts natural resources.
Geothermal and solar are the ways to go. Unfortunately, since both sunshine and heat from the earth are virtually limitless, it will be very hard for the very few to profit.
The reference to the
The reference to the Cambrian era actually undermines your argument. One-sided assessments are notorious for it; when just a little more information is entered your argument becomes self-refuting. Life was exclusively marine in the Cambrian era, and much of it has become far more complex since then, adapting to a far different environment. I don't want to live in the water. If you were to find yourself in Cambrian era, the atmosphere would be poison. You would experience asphyxiation, which is one of the most awful and torturous ways to die. You assert that we could survive atmospheric conditions that would cause the oblivion of our species.
So we should continue to
So we should continue to rely on other countries for our oil? We should ignore the fact that uranium will not last forever? And we should neglect to instate those technologies that would give us energy independence? The issue of energy economy is bigger than just global warming. Stop over-simplifying the problem and taking the opposition point to seem smart.
AGW is the biggest lie ever
AGW is the biggest lie ever told, a hoax to gain ever more and more control of our lives.
My ex-compatriots on the left have bought the computer model predictions which leave out vital input.
Wake up. Scientists are bailing off this faster than politicians off the Obama economic recovery plan.
Atmospheric Global Warming (AGW)
-
tagged as:
- solution
The lemming like passion of the AGW crowd is stunning. I'll bet you lunch that the average AGW person could not produce a coherent argument for AGW. Seems that the Obama steamroller is going to flatten the economy with this ruse. Best to line up for for the subsidies while lining up against the policies. The compliant press and dumbmasses will carry this one to the goal line for the greenies.
Welcome to the information stone age.
Trust Jesus.
Glow-Bull Warming
So the wart-hog-like Stalinist who represents my congressional district has a nice, thick recipe to fix the weather. I guess now that they've fixed the economy by writing a couple trillion dollars in bad checks these geniuses are going to apply their talents to loading further burdens on any form of productive activity.What a disaster this is. Crap-On-Trade has already been a miserable failure in Europe, so why not try it here? I hope you Greenies wont be too shocked when the penny drops and you realize that socialist countries with one-party 'democracies' like we have apparently installed here have by far the worst environmental records on the planet. Oh well, too late now. Enjoy the Green Bill!
http://www.skep41.blogspot.com/
"The legislation creates a
"The legislation creates a National Climate Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that will lead climate change research in the future"
If the science was settled and we have consensus (as claimed by the Gorons) then why do you need to waste money on further research?
AGW
The lunatic, "I have to feel good" crowd is in charge and the sane are at their mercy. We are sooooooo screwed!
Global Warming, er Climate change, er Gov't control of our lives
-
tagged as:
- solution
The land mass America inhabits takes in about 20% more CO2 than we emit. The increased C02 actually makes plants and crops grow better. (Remember,plants and trees take in CO2 and emit 02.) Unlike the gov't which takes our money and emits poop. If they were interested in lowering C02 levels, then all we need to do is plant more grass and trees. Problem solved!
Climate change is a 1500 year cycle give or take 500 years. My 7th grader did a research paper based on actual facts. He concluded that man does not cause global warming on Earth or on Mars. Are we are stupid enough to think we could cause it ?
Are we foolish enough to think that government could fix it?
AGW
Have ANY of you conspiracy theorists even audited a graduate level climatology course before? Or do you just get your info from the internet or your sunday school teachers?
You have the time to dig around and ingest all the Gore hating and hoax propaganda. Spend some time and educate yourselves properly.
Sunday School pejorative
I can only speak for me regarding informing myself on AGW. I am still searching for evidence, other than the subjectivity of climatic modeling. The errors associated with those predictions strain their credibility. I have a hugh problem with AGW being settled science. If you understand science you know it is never settled. Scientists are always seeking to answer the questions that originate from their research. The wreckage of history is littered with "settled science".
I have yet to hear the subject addressed in my Sunday School class and I abhor talk of hate for anyone. I would like to understand how man's contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere have been quantified as the cause for the grave effect predicted by those, not so trusty, climatic models. So far all I get is disrespect for asking questions. It reminds me of the religious fundamentalists I run across who talk you down if you disagree. I try to avoid those types, relegious or scientific, at all costs. BTW am a retired hydrologist (scientist who studys water) after 33 years with USGS.
Be reasonable and trust Jesus.
AGW
It's not "atmospheric" global warming, it's anthropogenic (man made).
Fair enough. To the extent
-
tagged as:
- solution
Fair enough. To the extent that the cap applies to carbon emissions which more or less are practically constrained to occur within the United States (electric generation, transportation) this system may provide some relief. To the extent that it applies to carbon emissions which result from manufacturing which is not constrained to remain in the United States (chemical industry, steel and aluminum manufacturing and any other manufacturing which is energy intensive) it will simply result in an exodus of those enterprises to countries where manufacturing costs (including energy) are less expensive.
Proposals to increase climate and energy research are vital. As is transparency in this undertaking. Any enterprise, government, academic or private which is engaged in research which may become the basis for public policy making should be required to publish their conclusions and all of the data, methods and calculations they used to arrive at those conclusion in forms which are easily accessible to other researchers. Public policy should not even consider research which is not available for review, not only by carefully selected "peers", but also by the general community as a whole. Any less transparency that this imperils the integrity of the studies and will likely result -- regardless of anyone's point-of-view -- in a corruption of the decision making process. I have extensively reviewed technical literature on biofuels, for example, and find (on all sides of the discussion) glaring gaps and amazing misuses of data and recommendations by both proponents and opponents of the concept. And often these problems cannot be reasonably resolved because of the unavailability of information which is clearly intrinsic to whatever is being advocated. The technical community which will hopefully guide us in this endeavor must not only be expected to tell us "what" they believe, but "why" the believe it and "how" they arrived at their conclusions. And they must be willing to allow their research to be subject to whatever scrutiny other parts of the community may see fit to engage in.
fair enough to an extent
-
tagged as:
- solution
mrdon,
You, sir, are a silly man. It's all about how the do-gooders feel. This discussion has nothing to do with sane, rational debate. Gore said it and Obama believes it--the discussion is over.
So, be like global warming (uh, excuse me climate change) people and scream, yell, rant, rave and don't let real FACTS get in your way.
CO2 Trade Racket
Bottom line in this carbon drama , this is fight for "competitive advantage" nothing to do with climate.
Anthropogenic global warming
Anthropogenic global warming is balderdash. It's more about a drive toward statism, not a concern for improving our environment. Watch the movie "The Great Globl Warming Swindle" to learn some basics.
Yeah, Right
Can some AGW proponent here please explain to me two things:
Man has never devised a climate model that can accurately reproduce conditions known to have occured in the PAST, let alone predict what will happen in the future. Never. That being the case, why does it make sense to turn our economy upside down and lower everyone's standard of living (at least in this country) based on these models?
Secondly, even if you disregard the above, AND enact a US "solution", it means nothing unless the Chinese and Indians go along with it...which will happen when he** freezes over. How will you get around this fact?
If anyone can answer both of those questions for me you can consider me a convert. Until then, this is nothing more than social engineering under the guise of "economic recovery". It's lunacy.
Dear future convert- Yes
Dear future convert-
Yes climate models are limited and flawed. Lets assume for a minute that burning fossil fuels does absolutely nothing to our climate. So that argument can be suspended for now.
Here’s the next point….. burning fossil fuels emits so many other pollutants into the atmosphere we need to eliminate them for this reason alone. The sulfur, nitrogen oxides, suspended particles, and mercury released from burning oil and coal are causing devastating effects both to human health and the health of our atmosphere. This is beyond debate. The illness caused by these substances is well- documented. If you look at areas where these pollutants are higher (urbanized areas in the US, India and China), health is severely affected. By the way, check with people living in the Appalachians how they feel about their mountains being completely destroyed to get at the coal that remains there. This process, called mountaintop removal, is something people need to see.
India, China and the rest of the world are looking to the USA to be a leader, once again. We have led the world in spreading democracy, and in fighting terrorism, now we must be the leader on the environmental front. We consume the most resources in the world and emit the second most pollutants (china recently passed us—one area where they don’t want to). We have the technology right now to make these changes without significantly changing our quality of life. We need to lead the way here as we have in so many other areas. thanks
AGW
No one here has said anything about not wanting clean air and water. You want cleaner air - great, so do I. But that has nothing to do with climate change. Previous commenters have stated the climate models are inaccurate. That is a true statement.
The IPCC report in 2006 stated the climate models could not be vailidated because there were too many variables the models did not take into account - water vapor being the largest varaible not accounted for. The IPCC study then proceeds and uses these very same models to predict future conditions and accepts the results.
Why is this important? Because courts around the world have ruled non-validated models cannot be utilized in environmental studies. Without validation they cannot be corraborated and the courts have thrown them out. How do I know this - I am an environmental professional working in the field of air quality for the past 25 years. I have worked on dozens of Environemental Impact Statements and hundreds of Environmental Assessments and I do not use an air quality model that has not been vailidated.
How do you validate a model? You put the data in and compare the results with the real world. For the purposes of this discussion, take all of the empirical climate change data available from the years 1900-1950. Stick the data into one of these "models" and predict conditions in the year 2000. Then compare the results. The climate models being used by the IPCC fail every time - and not just to the third decible. They are not even close.
But you do not even have to go to those extents to see the difference. Your own eyes could show you if you would just open them and see. I have been an avid amateur astronomer since my days in college (1969-1973). I remember vividly looking at the polar caps of Mars and even have pictures of the sightings that I have kept ot this day. Where are the polar caps on Mars today? They are gone. they have melted away. But how could this be? There are no people on Mars, there are no cars on Mars, there is no AGP on Mars, there is no reason the polar caps should melt on Mars unless the Sun had something to do with it. And with that in mind, I ask you a simple question - If the Sun could raise the temperature on Mars, could it not affect the Earth in a like manner?
So resolve these two issues for me and you might have a convert. Until then, the debate is not over and the so-called consensus means nothing.
Why are their so many
Why are their so many conservative crazies here that are stupid enough to say that global warming is a hoax. I bet all the people making fun of this own SUVs and think recyling is stupid too. I bet they think it is stupid to buy coil lightbulbs and turn the lights off. I bet they think that wind power turbines are ugly, inefficient, and a waste of money. I bet they think the same about solar panels. They would rather have coal powererd plants spew pollution into the air than wind turbines whch emit no pollution and provide energy. Well, I got news for the morons who think global warming is a hox and being green is stupid. The news is we will go green and protect our planet wheter you idiots like it or not, and if you like polluted air and CO2 so much, why don't you idiots turn on your SUVs and inhale the fumes directly from your exhaust pipe.
Nice dialouge
I do not believe that AGW has been proven and refuse to be buffaloed into accepting something just because people are ferverent in their beliefs. I was the first on my block to purchase a hybrid auto (2007 Camery Hybrid). We generate electricity using solar panels. I use the low wattage light bulbs, recycle, donate to the homeless, ride my bike as much as possible, etc. SO SHUT UP and be a decent person. Your diatribe does not prove anything except that you are an intolerent person. Dig deep and provide some answers to the questions being asked. You are like the JWs and Mormon Missionaries who knock on my door and insist that I am worng because what they believe is true.
What do you know anyway? Don't quote others, come up with some understanding on your own. Study the issue and come to your own conclusions. Don't just agree with what you think is correct because it fits your bias!
Trust Jesus.
I applaud your purchase of
I applaud your purchase of the hybrid Camry, use of low wattage lightbulbs, solar panels, recycling, donating, and riding your bike as much as possible. You are a smart person in this area and at least want to help curtail the waste of our natural resources. This is a great move on your part and others should follow your example. However, your obnoxoius way of telling me to "SHUT UP" is uncalled for, and even though you are probably one of the more sensible Americans, you are showing intolorance and indecency by your harsh words for me. And for the record, I am not like a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness or any of those fundamentalist Christians. I am in no way like these idiots, and I am not biased, I just care about the health of our planet. What is wrong with believing in helping out the planet? You seem to understand and are doing the right thing, so why are you lashing out at me when you apparently agree with me? If I were in your shoes, I would not lash out, because the person I would be lashing out against would be someone who supports everything I am doing! If I were you, I would be lashing out at the conservative crazies that think what you are doing is stupid. If I were you posting a response comment to me, I would say I agree with you because I do not own a gas guzzler(In fact I own a hybrid Camry), I recycle, I have solar pnaels and low wattage bulbs, I ride my bicycle as mush as possible, and I donate. I may not agree fully with the AGW bill and I do not know if you do either, but at least there is someone here that is supporting and promoting what I am doing!
With that being said, I am your friend, not your enemy, so there is no need to lash out at me and call me intolorant. I am not intolorant of you and I respect all the actions you have taken to conserve, and I hope others will follow in your footsteps.
Now that I have your attention
Mr. Someone with a brain:
My directive to SHUT UP resulted from your inability to form any thought beyond calling people stupid, moron, etc. Perhaps I was a bit harsh, however, your name calling comes across as bigoted and intolerant. Sorry, but that is how you came across. I am concerned by the vehement tone of folks like you. Such a tone is very unproductive and does little to bring folks together to solve problems. I do not believe that the planet is in peril from climate change, more commonly known as global warming. I spent a few seasons in the Dry Valleys in Antarctica where I saw acient shorelines hundres of meters above my camp which was near sea level. Climatic variation is what happens, including the rise and fall of sea levels. These variations have taken place over the years long before the industiral age and SUVs.
I hope you are forming your own opinions and not following some point of view you tend to agree with without considering other points of view. Read the posts about AGW and try to answer the questions raised, these are thoughtful good questions. If you have no answers then what do you really know? DOn't resort to name calling, rather, take the brain God gave you and use it.
Trust Jesus
global climate change
There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect the planet, but you need to make certain your efforts to do so are not misguided. The whole idea that humans are causing climate change by atmospheric CO2 enrichment is an example of very bad science and $50 billion in funding to make sure few scientists dare condemn it.
Secondly, your comments about Mormons and JWs being idiots shows incredible intolerance. Such a comment discredits all your efforts to do something for the planet. You are more liking trying to jump on a political band wagon that is going down hill and out of control. Your intolerance is very unbecoming and revealing of the kind of individual you really are behind the Internet mask.
global climate change
There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect the planet, but you need to make certain your efforts to do so are not misguided. The whole idea that humans are causing climate change by atmospheric CO2 enrichment is an example of very bad science and $50 billion in funding to make sure few scientists dare condemn it.
Secondly, your comments about Mormons and JWs being idiots shows incredible intolerance. Such a comment discredits all your efforts to do something for the planet. You are more liking trying to jump on a political band wagon that is going down hill and out of control. Your intolerance is very unbecoming and revealing of the kind of individual you really are behind the Internet mask.
There are a couple of
-
tagged as:
- result
There are a couple of popular sports at which I perform poorly. One is a favorite of those here at MJ and youger, well-meaning, liberals - namely the sport of “Jumping to Conclusions.”
A recent op-ed piece by a Boston Globe writer asks the following: How would the popular media report the following?
We had the warmest winter in years!
All the Great Lakes were Ice Free this winter!
No Canadian provinces had snow on the ground Christmas Eve!
Scientists underestimated the amount of Antarctic Ice Shelf melting!!
We know that MJ and the popular media would jump all over this as further evidence of their position and those Jumpers – they would be all over the above as further proof of man-caused global warming (AGW).
The facts are just the opposite regarding the above. Did we hear that in the media? Nope. See the article here:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming
The one on Antarctic Ice Shelf… turns out a satellite sensor lost its calibration and showed “bare water” where in fact there was ice… missing about 193,000 square miles of ice. Do you know how big that is? Bigger than the state of California! That’s embarrassing when you publish incorrect data upon which others are making, er, jumping to conclusions.
From the NSIDC.org website:
“The problem arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily sea ice products. The underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February.” So much for credibility. I wonder what that did for some people's climate models?
The point is, one year or one decade does not a climate change make. Our lifetimes are so small compared to geologic time we should ensure we have solid scientific evidence before Jumping to Conclusions that will greatly impact our lives.
Coming back over the bar can be very embarrassing. That may be why The NY Times dedicated this week’s Sunday Magazine cover story to Freeman Dyson and why this great thinker and intellectual has not drunk the kool-aid of his peers.
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine/
Many of the above posters understand this bill will put more money and power in the government's hands... and that is not a good thing.
Unvalidated models, statism,
Unvalidated models, statism, unknown prehistoric climate, The Chinese and the Indians don't want to play along, Al Gore (like he invented global warming), the IPCC is corrupt, it's about the money not the climate, more CO2 =more plants=GOOD, it's Obama's fault, scientists are bailing on climate change.
Please...
Spend the time. Visit Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/.
None of these scientists are making money off global warming, unlike scientists working for the global warming skeptic organizations;
Global Climate Coalition.
Spin: Global Warming is real, but it is too expensive to do anything about. The Kyoto Protocol is fundamentally flawed.
Funding: Corporate members (industries, trade associations etc.)
George Marshall Institute
Spin: Blame the Sun. The Kyoto Protocol is fatally flawed.
Affiliated Individuals: Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist from Harvard; and Frederick Seitz.
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.
Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.
Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Spin: Moreover, climate change won t be bad for us anyway. Action on climate change is not warranted because of shaky science and flawed policy approaches.
Funding: Conservative foundations including Bradley, Smith Richardson, and Forbes. SEPP has also been directly tied to ultra right-wing mogul Reverend Sung Myung Moon s Unification Church, including receipt of a year s free office space from a Moon-funded group and the participation of SEPP s director in church-sponsored conferences and on the board of a Moon-funded magazine.
Affiliated Individuals:S. Fred Singer,Frederick Seitz
Greening Earth Society
Spin: CO2 emissions are good for the planet; coal is the best energy source we have.
Affiliated Individuals: Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, David Wojick, Sallie Baliunas, Sylvan Wittwer, John Daley, Sherwood Idso
Funding: The Greening Earth Society receives its funding from the Western Fuels Association, which in turn receives its funding from its coal and utility company members.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change
Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will help plants, and that's good.
Funding: The Center is extremely secretive of its funding sources, stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders. There is evidence for a strong connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels Association).
Affiliated Individuals: Craig Idso, Keith Idso, Sylvan Wittwer
Follow the Money is Good Advice and a Two-edged Sword
-
tagged as:
- result
I hope you have done similar research into the climate change industry. If you have, you will find some staggering numbers. It seems that the AGW/climate change band-wagon has become a major profit generator for many people.
Every "non-profit" must file a Form 990 with the IRS stating their revenues, expenses, and salaries of highest paid personnel. You will find most of these "green groups" are making a very hefty profit and paying very nice salaries.
Just one example... Carbonfund.org. They started just four years ago... a husband and wife team that offered a personal "carbon foot-print" calculator, personal guilt for having one, and offering a solution to rid you of your guilt (and who says this new AGW movement is not a religion?). The solution was to send them money to plant trees in South America.
I have their Form 990, which they must provide to the public and they can be found online at guidestar.org. In tax year 2007 they had revenues of $4.9 million with expenses of $3.1 million. Not a bad profit for a non-profit.
Another “non-profit” is Mother Jones, who had $9.1M in 2007 revenues and paid 19 people over $50K/year, including nine people making $100K to $170K per year. How many of you are making that kind of money?
One of the “green” celebrities is Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. RMI had $12.7M in 2007 revenues and $7.3M in “assets.” Amory, listed as “Chief Scientist,” was paid just over $1 million. RMI had travel expenses of $1.1M. How do you spend that much on travel with a staff of 43 (that’s over $25K/person including the admins and janitors!)? How much carbon was produced by that travel? So much for Amory’s main theme which is energy conservation. However, I am finding this hypocrisy common among “green” movement leaders.
btw… I think it’s great people find ways to enrich themselves. I’m just mad I didn’t think of taking advantage of well-meaning “greenies.”
So your "follow the money" approach is a good one. Just make sure you apply it equally to both sides of an issue.
Whers the proof?
Let's keep it scientific then: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let's see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures
4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km) They are now at 1979 levels.
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than "normal" (whatever that is)
6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)
7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather "sublimation"
8) The Antarctic is not "melting", it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows
9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below "normal" (again, whatever that is)
10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below "normal" temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)
11) Al Gores film was just deemed "propaganda" in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was reveled that some of the footage in Al’s film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” (ABC)
13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)
14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.
15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)
16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.
17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured
18) Several publications, including those that are “warmist” have recently written that the “natural” cycles of the earth may “mask” AGW. Give me a break.
19) 31,000 scientist have signed a petition against AGW!
Over the last ten years the world, along with China (1 new coal fired plant coming on line each week) and India, spewing millions of additional tons of CO2 in to the atmosphere these results should be impossible.
Now, please be so kind to give me one piece of observable evidence that man is causing "global warming".
And, when will Al Gore humbly give his “Noble Prize” back as he is a complete fraud?
Let’s keep it correctly
Let’s keep it correctly scientific. All of your “data”points have the typical denialist errors.
(1) The average annual temperature of 2005 surpassed 1998 (NOAA-GISS). http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
Nobody denies that 2008, next to the year 2000, was the coolest year in the 2000s. What is left out in saying this is that the 2000s are by far the hottest decade in recorded history. If 1998, an anomalous El Nino year, is excluded, all of the years except 2000 are hotter than all the years preceding them. The denialist cling to the year 1998, an unusually intense El Nino year, as their base year to compare all succeeding years. No climate statistician would use an anomalous year to compare succeeding years. In addition, to be considered significant in terms of climate change, climatologists consider 30 years as a time scale indicative of climate change.
(2) Temperature trends for the past 30 years are trending decidedly upward. Again, no one with any statistical experience would take an anomalous year for their base comparison year. Not even John Christy at UAH would say that.
(3) Your statement number 3 is incorrect. According to scientists at Cal Tech Jet Propulsion Laboratory; NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory; U, of Hawaii; Scripps Institution of Oceanography, U. of Cal; the scientists actually researching the Argo buoys, have shown that sea surface temperature trends have been rising, albeit with peaks and valleys on the graph. An excellent source of actual data is http://science.gmu.edu/~yvikhlya/data/sst.html.
(4) The actual volume of Arctic ice is consistently decreasing. In 2007, the extent of Arctic ice did rebound to the 1979 extent. However, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has shown that the Arctic has consistently lost ice mass, including in 2007 and 2008. The amount of perennial thick Arctic ice mass is shrinking dramatically, far faster than even the most pessimistic models have predicted. According to NSIDC scientist Mark Serreze, “The Arctic ice is in its death spiral.” My guess is that he is more qualified to make a statement on the condition of the Arctic sea ice than you are.
(5) Your statement number 5 directly contradicts the NSIDC data. According to the NSIDC, “2008 probably represents the lowest volume of Arctic sea ice on record,…” And: “A wide range of observations give indications that the ice cover is thinning.” According to Serreze and Strove, 2008, “The emerging view is that if we're still waiting for the rapid slide towards this ice-free state, we won't be waiting much longer.”
(6) According to Professor Andrew Derocher of the U. of Alberta, who chairs the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, findings of drowning polar bears, cannibalism, increased numbers of polar bears seeking food near Arctic communities were reported from many areas. These observations are consistent with predicted changes caused by climate warming. Go to the IUCN summary of polar bear population status report for actual information: http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html.
(7) There has been ice on Kilimanjaro for at least 11,000 years. Experts believe that the ice cap on Kilimanjaro was still growing in 1880. Since the first proper survey, conducted in 1912, 80 percent of the ice has vanished. According to Georg Kaser of the U. of Innsbruck, loss of ice on Kilimanjaro has been due to the drying of that region of Africa up until the 1960s, during which time, the dry/wet pendulum swung back to more humid conditions. If the wet/dry argument was the key to ice loss due to sublimation, then the mountain should now be gaining ice. The troposphere around Kilimanjaro is clearly warming, contributing to current ice loss on Kilimanjaro.
(8) Satellite studies over the relatively inaccessible Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica have shown clear evidence of ice sheet retreat showing all the features that might have been predicted for emergent collapse (Vaughan, 2008). In West Antarctica, widespread losses along the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas increased the ice sheet loss by 59% in 10 years to reach 132 60 Gt yr-1 in 2006 (Rignot et al., 2008). In East Antarctica, small glacier losses in Wilkes Land and glacier gains at the mouths of the Filchner and Ross ice shelves combine to a near-zero loss of 4 61 Gt yr-1 (Rignot et al., 2008).
(9) That is an incredibly inaccurate statement. A number of Antarctic weather stations have been in operation since 1957, but virtually all of them have been on or near the coast and provide no direct information about conditions in the continent’s interior. This graphic by NASA gives a far more accurate picture of Antartic temperature trends (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/8000/8239/antarctica_avhrr_81-07_lrg.pdf).
(10) This statement is self-contradicting. The year 2001 According to NOAA, “The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C). The presence of a moderate-to-strong La Niña contributed to an average temperature that was the coolest since the La Niña episode of 2000-2001.”
(11) Don’t follow politicians when it comes to climatology (or any other science), follow the scientists. Approximately 99% of climatologists believe that the globe is warming due to anthropogenic causes.
(12) Same as (11).
(13) The current rise in CO2 preceded the recent (post 1850) rapid increase in global temperature. If under natural conditions, temperature rise precedes a rise in CO2, then the current temperature CO2 relationship does not follow the natural model, providing further evidence that the current situation is not natural.
(14) I guess we will find out what that means to climate. According to the Met Office, 2008 was one of the top ten warmest years on record.
(15) The Medieval Warm Period was a localized event, possibly favored by a long period of predominantly positive phased North Atlantic Oscillation. Once you move away from Northern Europe, the evidence is strong that the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than the present. But aside from that, this period was probably more a shifting of heat transfer. Overall global heat was not gained by the earth, which is happening today.
(16) That is largely based on the belief the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is shifting from positive to negative. As in the North Atlantic Oscillation, this represents a shifting of heat transfer, not a change in the radiative energy balance of the earth. The fact remains, the earth’s radiative energy balance is out of kilter because we are receiving more radiative energy than we are giving up.
(17) It has been measured. Currently, we receive 0.85 watts per meter more than we give up. This was not the case before the CO2 increase. Before the increase in atmospheric CO2, there was a radiative energy balance.
(18) I noticed you haven’t provided any publications. Here is a good opportunity: What are the several publications you are referring to?
(19) I suggest you watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I&feature=channel_page
I am amazed at the amount of
I am amazed at the amount of misinformed people posting on this blog, or maybe they are joking because it is April Fools Day. If these posts are not April Fools jokes, then it apparently seems that nearly everyone here has been brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who claim liberal Ameircans are "hysterical", and "unhinged", about climate change, and they too call it a hoax, just like the vast majority of posters here do. But, I hope it is just everyone here is only playing an April Fools joke, because most of the posts here I view as jokes because of how crazy the ideas and reasons in them are. However, if they are not jokes, it shows how poorly educated the average American is. Unfortunately I believe most of these posts are actually serious and reflect the way these people feel and what they believe about climate change and global warming. And that, my friends, is no joke!
The science behind global warming
This issue has been studied for over 100 years. The history of the science can be studied at the site of the American Institute of Physics at:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
The 53 most common "skeptical" arguments have been sympathetically explained and then ruthlessly refuted, with reference to real-world science, at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
As it turns out, all of the arguments used by AGW skeptics have been taken from the dustheap of scientific history. They are all recycled from the ideas that were discarded during the course of scientific debate; unfortunately, they are no better the second time around.
Neal J. King
Compelling but...............
Mr King:
I have looked at the websites you provided. Thanks. It will take some time to delve into the content. I appreciate the give and take discussion about particular points, such as how models fit the data given the exclusion or inclusion of particular variables.
I am yet to be pursuaded that we are primary drivers of the problem but I'll be honest and follow up on your suggestions.
Wait, we need to stop the CO2!!
How many other things release vast quantities of CO2? We need to look into getting rid of all them, too!!!
How much CO2 is released every time...
...a dog or cat is bred to be a pet? We need to get rid of pets - the breathe out a lot of CO2. That tabby cat of yours helped Katrina to kill people in Louisiana.
... you open a can of soda? That's a lot of CO2 in that Coke or Pepsi. We need to get rid of sodas.
... you open a beer? Also a lot of CO2. We need to ban beer. It does kill polar bears.
... you eat ANY meat - an breathing animal emitted CO2. We need to ban ALL meat. This includes fish. I don't mean stop eating - I mean kill all the animals (sorry Mr. Polar Bear - you're emitting CO2, too.).
... you eat any plant that is taking CO2 out of the air? Removing plants leaves CO2 to accumulate in the air so we have to ban eating veggies.
... you breathe out CO2. Your killing the planet. So are your kids. ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE!! We got to get rid of the people to save...
...who or what?
This has to be one of the
This has to be one of the stupidest posts I have ever read, and with something this unfathomable, surely it is an April Fools joke! You conservatives use the stupidest analogies to justify your anti-environmentalism viewpoints, or any of your viewpoints for that matter. Eating veggies and breathing air does not equate to billowing smoke from coal plants or factories. Hell, it does not even equate to drving your gas guzzlers around. The CO2 emmisions you are jokingly talking about are natural, SUVs, coal power plants, and factories with huge smoke stacks are not natural. This is just like saying guns don't kill people, people kill people, so therefore guns are safe. But the smart person with a voice of reason would say a gun sitting will not kill a person, but a person with a gun can kill a person much more easily than a person without a gun can, so therefore guns are dangerous. I know this is unrelated to the topic, but it is another example of what stupid, close minded conservatives say to defend their looney viewpoints.
Sarcasm as an argument?
So we are down to using sarcasm as an argument? Really?
What is next - do we call each other poopy-heads?
Sheesh.
Anyone with any sense should first read Neal J Kings excellent link before parroting an already debunked argument: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
It would save all of us an immense amount of time.
Tripp
independent of global warming.....
...I would like to be able to look out my window and not see smog. I would like to be able to go jogging and not taste the emissions in the air. I would like it if my asthmatic mother could go to any city in the world and not worry about the quality of the air she is breathing. I have EVERY right to push for my tax money being spent on the development of clean energy because I would like to live with cleaner air......
....independent of global warming.......
AGW
When i hit my thumb with a hammer, I know it hurts. I don't need someone to scientifically prove to me how the hammer causes me pain.
Islands in the pacific are already going under, massive amounts of Artic and Antartic ice have already melted. For the first time in recorded history we can easily sail over the top of Russia. scientists across the globe are consistently reporting on massive shifts in our climate, in the patterns of migratory species, the loss of glaciers, the mass extinctions of species etc. etc.
Regardless of whether you are a climate skeptic or not, fossil fuels and forests are limited resources, they will and are running out. The solution to climate change also happens to be the solution to peak oil, peak soil, peak air, biodiversity and habitat loss, and the unequal wealth distribution of the world. Polluter pays, and that means Americans, Australians, Europeans, Chinese, Indians. Perhaps then, the other 100's of countries and billions of people in the 'developing' world, might actually get a shot at a decent life.
So whether you 'believe or not', when oil hits $500 a barrel, and you can't breathe for lack of oxygen, I reckon you'll think investing heavily in renewable energy was a good idea.
Ever heard of the precautionary principle?
If we reshape the globe to deal with climate change, it will come out as a world un happered by competition for limited resources, which translates into PEACE.
If we don't, we will simply fight over our depleting resources. WW3 is a battle for oil, water, earth, and air.
I know I sound alarmist, but in fact I am just stating the facts as I, and tthe majority of sane people, see them.
I hope the bill gets through, minus the offsets!
Cheers
Paul
AGW
When i hit my thumb with a hammer, I know it hurts. I don't need someone to scientifically prove to me how the hammer causes me pain.
Islands in the pacific are already going under, massive amounts of Artic and Antartic ice have already melted. For the first time in recorded history we can easily sail over the top of Russia. scientists across the globe are consistently reporting on massive shifts in our climate, in the patterns of migratory species, the loss of glaciers, the mass extinctions of species etc. etc.
Regardless of whether you are a climate skeptic or not, fossil fuels and forests are limited resources, they will and are running out. The solution to climate change also happens to be the solution to peak oil, peak soil, peak air, biodiversity and habitat loss, and the unequal wealth distribution of the world. Polluter pays, and that means Americans, Australians, Europeans, Chinese, Indians. Perhaps then, the other 100's of countries and billions of people in the 'developing' world, might actually get a shot at a decent life.
So whether you 'believe or not', when oil hits $500 a barrel, and you can't breathe for lack of oxygen, I reckon you'll think investing heavily in renewable energy was a good idea.
Ever heard of the precautionary principle?
If we reshape the globe to deal with climate change, it will come out as a world un happered by competition for limited resources, which translates into PEACE.
If we don't, we will simply fight over our depleting resources. WW3 is a battle for oil, water, earth, and air.
I know I sound alarmist, but in fact I am just stating the facts as I, and tthe majority of sane people, see them.
I hope the bill gets through, minus the offsets!
Cheers
Paul
Petition Project
What about the Petition Project?? The petition is marched out like a Holy Grail whenever there is a debate about climate change. I’ve perused the Petition Project website...the 31,000 "Scientists" (Hah!!) against human-caused global warming.
I just randomly picked some signees names and Googled away. I was shocked (not really) to find pretty much anything but scientists as signees of this petition.
With Frederick Seitz leading the charge I should not have expected anything of substance.
So I skipped around and pulled 20 names out of the petition...not a significant sample size really...but it's all I could stomach.
(side note- if you are a scientist of any kind, google will find you. I'm a mid-level staff scientist, with less than 12 publications...but if I google my name everything shows up, even abstracts, posters, etc...and I don't have a PhD!!)
Here are the results;
1. PhD...NOTHING, no match for anything on google, which is amazing.
2. Anesthesiologist. Enough said.
3. Geotechnical Engineer (score one for the Petition Project)
4. Financial Advisor, Paine-Webber. (good luck fella!)
5. PhD...only information found was signatory of Petition Project (PP), no publications.
6. same as #5.
7. same as #5.
8. Management consultant (truly vague)
9. Cosmetic Plastic Surgeon.
10. PhD..Veterinary Medicine
11. Hematologist
12.Sociologist
13. City Coucilman, with PhD Mathematics
14. PhD..Veterinary Medicine
15. PhD in 1956...no publications. Only other info was record of thesis and signatory of PP.
16. President of Energy Research. PhD in Nuclear Science (score another point, but did not find any evidence of publications)
17. same as #5
18. same as #5
19. PhD in 1958...no publications. Only other info was record of thesis and signatory of PP.
20. PhD in 1966...no publications. Only other info was signatory of PP.
So, MAYBE 2 of the 20 could be classified as scientists. Three MD's, eleven PhD's (2 in veterinary medicine), the rest just average Joe the Plumber types. Nine of the 11 PhD's had no publications!!! At least 3 of those PhD's received their degrees before the modern computer age and are most certainly retired at this point.
What have we learned?
1. The "Petition Project" is probably not as relevant as some conservatives think. If you want to believe that your Internal Medicine doctor has insight regarding climate change AND can treat that growth on your left foot...then go ahead. BELIEVE it. Just don't wave it in the face of real science.
2. A PhD after your name does not classify you as a scientist. You should have some publications in a peer-reviewed journal.
3. If you don't believe the information about the signatories of the PP...do your own test. Pull names off the list and track those people down. You may not like what you find.
Peace. Out.
Would like to see more
Would like to see more details ...
There are a lot of sample
There are a lot of sample dissertations and dissertation examples on this topic. But I need more information for my dissertation research.
