Political Involvement With Agw / Gw / Climate Change

[Iceberg]

PP both bills are essentially the same, the changes were relatively minor.

There is alot of politics to get this through, changes etc to ensure that agri states passed it. There is also alot of hatred for the bill from people that don't like Obama.

Obama seems to have done the smallest amount of politics to get it through.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...imate-bill-vote

"For the most part, however, Republicans have almost uniformly opposed the bill, and say it amounts to a hidden energy tax. They have also argued that the bill would drastically raise electricity prices – a claim debunked with the release of a cost-analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office showing it would cost the average family $175 (£107) by 2020, and would save poor families about $40"

It's all about cutting CO2 emissions, if you don't agree with AGW I can see why you think it's a waste of money, but if you do agree with AGW then it's at least a step forward.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, I'll have to delve more into the bill itself to form a strong view on it, but I only see measures that cut CO2 as a step forward if they aren't at least offset by negative side-effects in other areas.

However, these bits sound pretty good to me:

The bill, now swollen to about 1,200 pages, would bind the US to reduce the carbon emissions from burning oil and coal by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and more than 80% by 2050.

It also envisages a range of measures to promote clean energy – from a development bank for new technology to new, greener building codes and targets for expanding the use of solar and wind power.

...except that I'm far from convinced that 80% cuts by 2050 are particularly realistic, it will take a number of decades for us to shift towards something more sustainable. But given the high consumption of American lifestyles I don't see why they shouldn't be able to achieve 17% reduction by 2020 without much in the way of pain.

[PersianPaladin]

PP both bills are essentially the same, the changes were relatively minor.

There is alot of politics to get this through, changes etc to ensure that agri states passed it. There is also alot of hatred for the bill from people that don't like Obama.

Obama seems to have done the smallest amount of politics to get it through.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...imate-bill-vote

"For the most part, however, Republicans have almost uniformly opposed the bill, and say it amounts to a hidden energy tax. They have also argued that the bill would drastically raise electricity prices – a claim debunked with the release of a cost-analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office showing it would cost the average family $175 (£107) by 2020, and would save poor families about $40"

It's all about cutting CO2 emissions, if you don't agree with AGW I can see why you think it's a waste of money, but if you do agree with AGW then it's at least a step forward.

Relativley minor? Are you kidding me?

Go and watch the video I posted and how the congressman filibusters by going through many of the amendments and their wide-ranging implications!

The Guardian cannot claim that the CBO is non-partisan. This is the same CBO that was involved in making reccommendations about the multi-billion dollar bail-out of Wall-Street banks: -

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackO...E50R5FR20090129

This is the CBO that fails to speak about the full monetary impact of the Federal Reserve system that deals with a lot of the liquidity and affects the expansion and the contraction of the money supply in the economy and also in the Treasury.

This bail-out was basically paying the banks for not only selling fraudulent futures and financial instruments, but ordering that the public pay up for the credit-bubble of private firms. And what did some of these banks do with the bail-out money from tax payers? They spent it overseas: -

The people in the Obama administration such as Paulson (of the Treasury) and Tim Geithner are linked to private banks. Also, private banking employees and investors had a lot in Obama: -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7041701688.html

Not only that, but the very Federal Reserve bank of America is actually owned by private banks, and is not government-owned: -

http://www.monetary.org/federalreserveprivate.htm

And if you think this is just about increasing energy-bills, then you are not looking at the full facts and implications, as well as the downright fraud and injustice. You do know that the technical name for a government run by private corporations and banks is fascism?

This was the case with Bush, and now it is continuing with Obama.

Edited June 29, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[OldGreggsTundraBoy]

The only thing that can really help is burning less fossil fuels tho, Rofl at government involvement in such issues as GW

In summer i think GW is good cos u get storms but in summers it's good for storms so i have a tendacy to be much worse at burning resources in summer, then be careful in winter, obviously what i do makes no difference to anything but yeh... :lol:

[PersianPaladin]

The Federal Reserve has not been audited for decades, so why is the CBO keeping quiet? Why is the CBO keeping quiet about the quadrillion dollar derivatives bubble?

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/demeritt061608.html

Why have they reduced the assessment of financial impact of the TARP on the taxpayer?

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cbo-di...2008-09-24.html

[pottyprof]

Ahhhhhhhh.... The wonderful world of ENRON lives on....

----------

Just been reading an interesting report on the CBS web site thingy...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/po...ry5117890.shtml

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

Here's a link to the 98 page report pdf

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

[Thundery wintry showers]

The only thing that can really help is burning less fossil fuels tho, Rofl at government involvement in such issues as GW

In summer i think GW is good cos u get storms but in summers it's good for storms so i have a tendacy to be much worse at burning resources in summer, then be careful in winter

Not necessarily. Thunder frequency across the UK has generally declined since the abrupt warming commenced around 1989.

[Solar Cycles]

The Federal Reserve has not been audited for decades, so why is the CBO keeping quiet? Why is the CBO keeping quiet about the quadrillion dollar derivatives bubble?

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/demeritt061608.html

Why have they reduced the assessment of financial impact of the TARP on the taxpayer?

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cbo-di...2008-09-24.html

Some very interesting points raised their PP! The murky world of politics and finance, were nothing is as it seems!

Edited June 30, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[laserguy]

Not necessarily. Thunder frequency across the UK has generally declined since the abrupt warming commenced around 1989.

Yet the climate change posse insist that warming will cause more frequent and intense storms,not to mention floods in general,oh and drought... and everything else you can think of. Handy that,innit?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Funnily enough, part of my PhD involves addressing that very question!

There is strong evidence (partly based on potentially flawed climate models- but also various laws of thermodynamics) that over the globe as a whole, intense rainfall and thunderstorms will increase if temperatures increase substantially. However there is considerable uncertainty over whether this will happen to the UK because synoptics will probably change as well. Changes in synoptics are probably responsible for the decline in thunderstorms over the UK over the last couple of decades- for as August 2004 and July 2006 showed, it's not as if we can't get thundery months any more.

[Methuselah]

Here is the latest from James Hansen; is it just me or does anyone else feel uneasy that a leading climate scientist is so politically active?

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2168

So, what's wrong with ending such ecological destruction - money?

[Thundery wintry showers]

An interesting article here:

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2153

I agree with the general approach but there are some controversies over the specific suggestions, as can be seen in the responses they got.

My problem with this "stick first, carrot second" approach that most mainstream environmentalists deem a "necessary evil" is simple. If we bring in carrots first, giving people alternatives the best we can, we give them something to move to. If the carrots alone aren't enough, then we can bring the sticks in, but only to the minimum extent that is necessary in order to bring about the changes we want.

In contrast, if we bring in the sticks first, we force people to make dramatic cuts, and as the "carrots" are not yet in place, there are no alternatives- people just have to take the hit. The result is that we may achieve similar environmental improvements in the long run, but people may potentially have to make far more sacrifices.

Many of the environmentalists I've discussed these things with come back at me with the argument "but where do you get the money? Nope- the ONLY WAY to get the money is to bring in a big revenue-raising stick!". One big problem with that line of argument is that it assumes that revenue-raising "sticks" actually raise revenue overall, but often this is at least offset by the cost of setting up and maintaining them.

I do, however, think that some "sticks" will be necessary, but I think the mainstream environmentalists' policies gives us a choice of two evils- have runaway pollution or severely cripple quality of life as we know it. Of course, it's entirely possible that in a final objective analysis my opinions might turn out to be wrong- there might be no other option. But to date, my discussions with mainstream environmentalists have suggested that at present, there's too much defensiveness of the "stick first" orthodoxy for views like mine to be given objective consideration by the mainstream. It's similar to the way many of the more moderate climate sceptics feel their views are dismissed too readily by the mainstream.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[Gray-Wolf]

It would appear that when the ecconomy is in danger money can be majicked out of nowhere.

When the Environment is in danger every penny is hard fought for.

Isn't one of the above a construct of mans mind and the other the place that supports mans mind???? Seems a bit skewed in the weighting if you ask me!

[noggin]

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/banned-epa

I can't see that we've mentioned this yet, although it has been around for a few days now.

Apropos the passing of the climate change bill in America and the supression* of documents detailing evidence that the evidence on which the bill was passed is incorrect and outdated. Shocking, I reckon.

Interesting couple of summary paragraphs at the end, too. The phrase "formerly impregnable bastion" particularly appeals to my love of words. I might store that one away for use at some future point!

* is it 1 "p" or 2 "p"s? Neither looks right to me........

[Methuselah]

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/banned-epa

I can't see that we've mentioned this yet, although it has been around for a few days now.

Apropos the passing of the climate change bill in America and the supression* of documents detailing evidence that the evidence on which the bill was passed is incorrect and outdated. Shocking, I reckon. B)

Interesting couple of summary paragraphs at the end, too. The phrase "formerly impregnable bastion" particularly appeals to my love of words. I might store that one away for use at some future point!

* is it 1 "p" or 2 "p"s? Neither looks right to me........

The anticipated conspiracy?

[laserguy]

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/banned-epa

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

Here's another one for the pot. I'm resigned to keep saying this until it sinks in - 'AGW' has nothing,but nothing to do with climate - it's politics pure and simple and a front for the need to regulate 'carbon' and the comsumption of 'it' in the face of dwindling supplies and skyrocketing demand. Ok,some have different motives,the enviro-nuts and those who rely on 'it' for a living,but this is the politcs thread so I'll leave it at that.

[Methuselah]

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

Here's another one for the pot. I'm resigned to keep saying this until it sinks in - 'AGW' has nothing,but nothing to do with climate - it's politics pure and simple and a front for the need to regulate 'carbon' and the comsumption of 'it' in the face of dwindling supplies and skyrocketing demand. Ok,some have different motives,the enviro-nuts and those who rely on 'it' for a living,but this is the politcs thread so I'll leave it at that.

You'll be saying it for quite a while then!

[pottyprof]

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/banned-epa

I can't see that we've mentioned this yet, although it has been around for a few days now.

Yes.. It was mentioned here..

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...t&p=1554040

I don't know how you missed that one Noggin..

[noggin]

Yes.. It was mentioned here..

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...t&p=1554040

I don't know how you missed that one Noggin..

Mr Smartypants.......

[noggin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...ders-unite.html

Wasn't quite sure where to put this.......

Very strange things for Al Gore to say........is he getting a bit loopy, like Gordon Brown?

Apart from likening the battle against climate change to WW2 (I do not know if he personally mentioned Hitler in his address or if it was the Mail reporter's take on it) he also says that governments do not have the will to do anything about it. From where I am sitting, they are doing plenty, particularly in the way of putting up taxes and even creating new ones.

[noggin]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6658672.ece

More of what was said, from the Times.

....and finally, WUWT's take on it....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/07/gore-and-nazis/

Edited July 8, 2009 by noggin

[Gray-Wolf]

Didn't polite society have Churchill as pinned as a 'warmongerer' up until his skills were needed (and his 'ravings' revealed as concise predictions?)?

Could Gore end up in the same position?

[The Penguin]

I doubt it. I mean the Germans didn't start the Last Unpleasantness by sneaking up on Poland an inch per year, did they. Churchill would still be waiting to be proved right....or wrong.

[Gray-Wolf]

I doubt it. I mean the Germans didn't start the Last Unpleasantness by sneaking up on Poland an inch per year, did they. Churchill would still be waiting to be proved right....or wrong.

Is that how we view climate shift Pengers old boy? I though it involved some rapid and horrid things like drought (watch the Aussies Nino' summer drought over their summer this year) and flood and not just a slow inundation of coastal cities.

Hitlers breaking of the V. treaty and the re-armament of Germany /creation of an air force took a little while you know (I know memory is the first thing to go but I thought you'd have read the reports at the time!!!)

[jethro]

Don't know if it's dodgy reporting or if it's a verbatim quote but the "He said sceptics who refused to believe dramatic cuts in carbon emissions could be delivered should consider the example of the young scientists in the NASA team which put a man on the moon on 1969." strikes me as being a large side step from Gore's previous stance.

Scepticism on this topic has always been about the actual science of the theory, not whether or not it's possible to move away from a carbon based future.

The cynic in me wonders if he's moved away from the science debate as there are too many questions he cannot answer. Further to this, concentrating on the dream of a carbon free future won't do his carbon offset company any harm will it? As for setting himself up as a Churchill like character in the fight against climate change, I'm not sure that's a wise move. For every person who thinks "yes, a man to lead us in the fight" I'm pretty sure they'll be at least three who think "jumped up little yank, how dare you compare yourself to our great leader"; let's not forget, Churchill leads the way by a long margin in all the polls as the greatest leader this country has ever had, a failed presidential candidate (sporting a large chip on his shoulder ever since) thinks he ranks along side Mr. C? Hmmmmmm.

Invoking Godwin's law, is usually a last ditch attempt to win a lost battle.....

Edited July 8, 2009 by jethro