WSJ not biting on McCain’s carbon “market”

posted at 9:15 am on May 13, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

The bastion of free-market journalism has little stomach for John McCain’s attempt to create a new market for carbon-emissions trading. The Wall Street Journal calls McCain’s attempt to address global-warming issues “vastly complex” and not all that distinguishable from what Barack Obama proposes. The editors conclude that it would create large swaths of new federal regulation and enforcement, the opposite of what energy producers need to lower prices and improve efficiency:

The latest stop on John McCain’s policy tour came at an Oregon wind-turbine manufacturer, where the topic was – what else? – the Senator’s plan to address climate change. This is one of those issues where Mr. McCain indulges his “maverick” tendencies, which usually means taking the liberal line. That was the case yesterday, no matter how frequently he claimed his approach was “market based.”

In fact, if “the market” is your favored mechanism, Mr. McCain’s endorsement of a “cap and trade” system is the worst choice for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. …

Then there’s cap and trade, which Mr. McCain has backed for years and would, as he put it with some understatement, “change the dynamic of our energy economy.” He noted that Americans have a genius for problem-solving but continued, “The federal government can’t just summon these talents by command – only the free market can draw them out.” To translate: His plan is “market based” insofar as it requires an expensive, invasive government bureaucracy to interfere with the market.

Where to begin? McCain’s vision of a government-run, government-mandated “market” really only exists as a series of taxes and subsidies, not a free market in any sense of the term. It starts with government mandates on emissions that may or may not be rational, and it produces penalties and rewards dependent — much like the federal tax system — on which lobbyists succeed in adapting the legislation to their benefit. As the WSJ points out, the system would force energy producers to buy “credits” from other industries that have reduced their global-warming sins already, or from foreign countries such as China to fund improvements in their energy-production systems.

Let’s emphasize that: American industry would pay to improve China’s energy infrastructure in a period when we expect to increasingly compete with China economically. Does this make sense?

In fact, we know it doesn’t make sense because Europe has had the same system in place to enforce the Kyoto accord. Have they met their reduction goals? Not exactly; instead, they’ve busied themselves trying to boost the emissions estimates from their baseline 1990 numbers in order to mask their failure and to reduce the cost of future compliance. Instead, the US has used incentives for businesses to modernize and retrofit, with real results. Under the Bush administration, carbon emissions have declined 3%, beating most of the EU nations using the same cap-and-trade system favored by McCain.

With that experience, the notion of cap-and-trade makes little sense. At least a “carbon tax” would have the virtue of honesty, as well as keep the proceeds within the US rather than forcing tribute to foreign nations for their own modernization. And since the science of all this remains unsettled — especially given the new predictions of a decade-long cooling while carbon continues to increase — the need for action is far from established at all. Both Obama and McCain offer top-down government-controlled solutions for a problem that appears to exist only in the fevered imaginations of statists.

While hydrocarbon emissions reductions have benefits outside of global-warming theories, the need to kneecap our economy while subsidizing those of our competitors simply does not exist.

Update: Hugh Hewitt notes McCain’s support for nuclear power as a way to trade off for carbon emissions:

Skeptics about any aspect of the global warming debate –the significance of the temperature rise, its origins, or the ability of humans to affect the temperature change– thus have a choice:  A candidate with a plan that includes a push for nuclear energy and accountability for China and other rapidly industrializing countries, or a candidate who will push an America-first, only, and without nuclear power plan.

McCain has occupied the center on this debate, and the GOP and conservatives should get over it and begin working to keep enough Republican senators in place to assure that President McCain’s emphasis on a new generation of nuclear power plants becomes a reality, thus keeping cap-and-trade from becoming a suffocating blanket.

We should push for nuclear power and a large expansion of domestic coal and oil production rather than adopt the failing EU system.  And while there are many reasons to prefer John McCain over Barack Obama, Hugh is wrong in identifying this as one of them.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Good. He may listen to them, since they don’t engage in the spittle flecked MDS seen in many other media outlets associated with the right.

funky chicken on May 13, 2008 at 9:18 AM

An R president at loggerheads with a D Congress over Geobbels Warmening is preferable to a D president with a D Congress, both licking their chops at expanding the federal government.

rbj on May 13, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Well, I guess when McCain tells us he doesn’t know much about economics, we should believe him. This cap and trade idea is the love child of the UN panel on climate change and the leftist academes and scientists who participate on it. McCain likes the flavor of the Kool-Aid.

BigD on May 13, 2008 at 9:29 AM

Spot on Ed! Please, give me one more reason not to vote for McCain. John seems to feel that by kowtowing to the green evangelicals he can somehow maintain his base and attract cross over Democrats. I think he fancies himself sort of a Gaylord Nelson with guns. He clearly thinks he can go through the motions of appeasing the base while not drinking the kool aid. He’d going to need the base in the fall and needs to get his mind right or face another election cycle in the box.

moxie_neanderthal on May 13, 2008 at 9:30 AM

MCain wants the same Soviet style top down command and control economy that the Soviets did so well with. Has anybody contemplated the numbers of “green collar” bureaucrats that would be needed to administer, oversee, check compliance and enforce this nonsense?

Control energy, you control everything.

Can people actually be that ignorant that you can tell them “if you pay more in taxes, government will pretend they can control the weather”. I wonder.

tarpon on May 13, 2008 at 9:36 AM

We are so screwed.

Bugler on May 13, 2008 at 9:40 AM

McCain won’t listen to anyone. He is a cranky fool who must be stopped.

/spittle

Valiant on May 13, 2008 at 9:50 AM

Under the Bush administration, carbon emissions have declined 3%, beating most of the EU nations using the same cap-and-trade system favored by McCain.

My head is going to explode. First, McShamnesty, then Huckabee, and now this. Take me now, Lord.

Jaibones on May 13, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Even if the liberal bete noire of anthro-greenhouse warming were a reality, McCain still strikes out because he fails to grasp the fundamental law of incentives: Whatever you punish (or tax), you get less of; whatever you reward, you get more of.

whitetop on May 13, 2008 at 9:52 AM

After reading the text of McCain’s climate change speech — http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjM0MTU3NTQxN2VhMjNjNmQ1NzU… — I was dismayed that he essentially conceded that global warming is significant problem and that the cause is man-made – yet another example of McCain the maverick. That being said, in the opening paragraphs or “problem statement” portion of his speech, he did not say anything that most Americans will find controversial. Conservatives need to understand and accept that the environmental left, especially those in scientific academia, have done a very good job of marketing man-made global warming. A majority of the U.S. electorate actually believes in man-made global warming. Whether conservatives like it or not, independent voters who will decide this election in the battleground states believe this is a real issue. The left is thrilled that they have finally found a way to market more government control of economic output (i.e. socialism) to American voters.

In the context of the 2008 election, man-made global warming is now a purely political issue that cannot be addressed effectively with a fact-based counter-argument. Why? There is no way to undo quickly the damage caused by years of propaganda from a significant portion of the largely government-subsidized scientific academic community on this issue – alas, they are mostly leftists who receive significant funding from government sources. Even with a lavishly funded, 100+ million dollars, marketing campaign — something McCain will not have — between now and November, it would be impossible to make a dent in most voters’ beliefs about the science surrounding this issue.

What is to be done from a conservative perspective? Once you accept that man-made global warming must be addressed purely as a political issue in this election cycle, an interesting opportunity presents itself for conservatives: the revival of the nuclear power industry in the United States. Reduced reliance on imported energy is a worthy goal for conservatives to embrace for both economic and national security reasons, and nuclear power is an available technology that can realistically achieve this goal. Furthermore, I think the McCain campaign realizes this, and there is more to the McCain campaign’s “capt and trade” solution to “man-made global warming” than appears at first glance.

To his credit, McCain specifically promoted nuclear power in his speech. For fueling our vehicles, there is no near-term replacement for gasoline and thus the need to keep importing oil. McCain talked about increasing the use of hybrids. Okay, even Victor Davis Hanson argues for more hybrids, albeit from a purely national security perspective. However, both imported oil and imported natural gas are used to generate electricity and consequently contribute to the demand driving higher prices for these sources of energy. In turn, these higher prices further finance both Islamist terrorism and Hugo Chavez. Coal and nuclear fission are two energy technologies available today for generating electricity that can actually provide sufficient energy to reduce the demand for imported oil and natural gas. Only one of these two produces no greenhouse gases and has been excluded from the domestic energy marketplace for essentially political, rather than technological reasons.

Quite frankly, the electorate’s current beliefs about greenhouse gasses and man-made global warming may be the only way to accelerate the revival of the domestic nuclear power industry over the typical NYMBY objections. From a tactical perspective, taking an agnostic approach as to whether man-made activity is behind global warming while working toward “a cleaner environment” is shrewd politics on McCain’s part. While I would prefer a purely market-based solution, the sad reality is that the energy market is already a manipulated mess due to the patchwork quilt of decades of government regulations, mandates and outright prohibitions. A domestic cap and trade program is an effective way for McCain to “campaign green” during 2008 to appeal to moderates, before driving legislation in 2009 whose practical outcome is a favorable political climate for the return of nuclear power as a major source of electricity generation in the United States in the next two decades. If France, yes France, can generate 80% of their electricity from nuclear power, there is no reason why the United States cannot do the same.

On a final note, the one institution in the United States that knows more about nuclear power than any other is the United States Navy: modern submarines, aircraft carriers, and cruisers are all nuclear powered and have been for decades. Know anybody running for president with a naval officer background who has considerable national security policy experience as a civilian?

blogpre on May 13, 2008 at 9:54 AM

They’ll be offering courses in advanced igloo design in Florida before the political class gets a clue about the climate change cozenage. Academia is in it for grant money; confidence game managers, like Goracle, are in it for the ego trip and the money. The big players in this racket have known for a while that the numbers are not supporting the global warming claims so the new strategy has been to re-baptize the issue as climate change and then attribute every natural disaster to it, witness the disaster in Burma and the Nobelized one’s immediate reaction.

It seems there is no choice this election cycle, at least on the presidential level, so the rubes taxpayers will pay the piper.

Annar on May 13, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Why does the GOP have a Democrat/socialist as their presumptive nominee? Why is the party’s grassroots just lying down and accepting it?

I don’t know what is worse. The GOP hijacking the party to the left or the party’s grassroot’s apathy and non involvement. I suspect the latter is worse.

voiceofreason on May 13, 2008 at 9:54 AM

This guy McCain is hands down the worst Republican nominee in my lifetime. He is badly misinformed–a moron, really–and he has a dangerous impulse to regulate everything. I won’t be voting for him (or Obama).

If there is any silver lining in this story, it is that some of the economic conservatives who have been pushing McCain, despite his many other warts, are finally having an ‘eye opening’ moment about their candidate.

james23 on May 13, 2008 at 9:57 AM

What are the chances of getting McCain into the same room with this guy, or someone like him, any time soon?

Akzed on May 13, 2008 at 9:57 AM

Where is the party leadership in this?

Their ears must be hurting from all the screaming that they are hearing.

How about turning the convention upside-down and making McCain have to convince the Party that he is even a Republican?

TexasJew on May 13, 2008 at 10:00 AM

This cap and tarde system will be earlarks on steroids. Congressmen will designate certain sectors or companies to receive emission credits. It will have the exact same effect as simply handing these companies cash.

Clark1 on May 13, 2008 at 10:17 AM

I’m no fan of McCain making global warming an important plank of his campaign but I’m dismayed people are sneering at cap-and-trade. It’s sound economics. Obviously it hasn’t worked for Europe. That might be due to the design of the market and the audacity of EU regulators. But a similar system worked to reduce emissions that cause acid rain. Facts are stubborn things.

In the case of reducing carbon–assuming that’s important, which I don’t–your two options are expensive, like incompetent top-down government planning or harnessing market forces. To do the latter you can either tax carbon or create a market.

Ultimately results, and the Bush administration’s tax credits are making progress. Ignoring that evidence was McCain’s second-biggest mistake on this issue.

seanhackbarth on May 13, 2008 at 10:25 AM

Carbon Market??

Give me a break!!!

This whole thing is just a “pay to live” scheme:
not much different from the old “protection rackets” run by the Chicago mobs.

The eco-Facists want to tax you every time you inhale and again when you exhale.

landlines on May 13, 2008 at 10:26 AM

I suppose, with a Party Leadership that is so stupid that it is not fit to even go into a national election, it will be up to the talk show hosts: Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin to stir up the pot.

We simply cannot afford our Party to put this jerk forward.
Since he tied up the election, he has all but admitted that he lied about “borders first”, that he will add hundreds of billions of dollars of punitive and phony carbon credits onto our economy and is to the left of even many democrats on this issue, and that he vehemently disdains conservatives and doesn’t want or need their support, just their primary votes.
In other words, he has committed a fraud by winning this process.
Obviously, McCain simply lied to the Republican primary voters to secure the nomination and has stolen the nomination for his own political ends. As soon as he hit the magic number of delegates, he has turned a 180.
Since he is currently running AGAINST the party platform and will thus hobble his own party’s senatorial and house members, most of whom are up for reelection, shouldn’t the party now pull the nominating process from him and open the convention?
Let him run as a frigging independent with that other scumbag, Chuck Hagel. They deserve each other.

TexasJew on May 13, 2008 at 10:28 AM

blogpre on May 13, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Excellent post that in my opinion should be read and re-read by everyone here who isn’t interested chiefly in an opportunity to wring his or her hands and cuss out the Mav, particularly the paragraph that begins: “Quite frankly, the electorate’s current beliefs about greenhouse gasses and man-made global warming may be the only way to accelerate the revival of the domestic nuclear power industry over the typical NYMBY objections.”
I would expand the argument, however, to include the national security piece that I believe is what turns this issue for McCain and others from a serious to a major issue, and also into a major political and practical opportunity.

In addition to breaking political logjams on nuclear power, the GW consensus on the center and left also provides the basis for a wide consensus on improved energy security. Because there’s nothing close to a free market in energy and infrastructure, domestically and internationally, nothing can happen without government intervention. This is in fact a traditional sphere for a strong government role, just like defense.

McCain’s argument boils down to mutually reinforcing but independent pieces:
1) The ecological byproducts of the carbon economy, including Global Warming, are significant, and potentially a major problem – until and unless we can completely dismiss the strongly held views of large numbers of scientists and activists, politically as well as intellectually, the precautionary principle forces us to take action;
2) Dependence on foreign oil creates intolerable and increasing economic and security vulnerabilities – including but not limited to “$400 bn/year to the bad guys” and our own and allies’ policies held hostage;
3) Accelerated movement to alternatives in directions beneficial to the United States (potentially very beneficial) can’t be managed solely by the market, which is global and anything but free.

The whiners and complainers never seem to move beyond attacking part of #1, posturing as so much better informed and intelligent than everyone who does believe in Global Warming, yet often in the process revealing, and reveling in, their own ignorance about what the other side really believes and argues. Simply shouting that the economic and political sky is falling is just a GW skeptic’s version of the same alarmism apparently driving so much on the other side.

CK MacLeod on May 13, 2008 at 10:33 AM

blogpre on May 13, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Best job I’ve seen, blogpre, of putting lipstick on this pig. Wreck the economy with crazy taxation and regulatIon schemes and hope that at least we get some nuclear power out of it.

In the context of the 2008 election, man-made global warming is now a purely political issue that cannot be addressed effectively with a fact-based counter-argument. . .
blogpre on May 13, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Not sure I agree with this. IF a bold and visionary Senator McCain were to listen to people like Bob Carter,

What are the chances of getting McCain into the same room with this guy, or someone like him, any time soon?

Akzed on May 13, 2008 at 9:57 AM

and then announce that he has concluded

(a) that the AGW alarmists are wrong;

(b) that there is no problem with CO2;

(c) that if elected, he will put the USA on a fast track to increasing mainstream energy development (coal, oil, nuclear); and

(d) because cheap, plentiful energy is the key to America’s growth and future in the world,

(e) we are not going to put our heads in the sand and fear the sky is falling on the strength of misguided, junk science—

IF the Senator were to stand up and proclaim a pro-energy, pro-growth, pro-American Century vision, THEN I’ll bet the American people would cheer and flock to his banner.

Big ‘ifs’. They depend on whether Senator McCain is a small, stubborn, blinkered old man of limited vision; or whether he is prepared, like Theodore Roosevelt, to lead the charge up to the City on the Hill that Ronald Reagan celebrated.

Is Senator McCain prepared to lead, or just to follow the head-in-the-sand Democrats into the abyss?

Which is it, Senator?

*****AMERICAN ENERGY FOR AMERICAN GROWTH!******

*****CO2 IS GOOD FOR AMERICA!*****

MrLynn on May 13, 2008 at 10:34 AM

If Co2 emissions have declined it’s likely that it’s a result of lower global temperatures and has nothing to do with government bureaucrats waving magic climate control wands.

I wonder if Johnny Mac is using this story as inspiration for his cap and trade scam?

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

That^^^ is an Associated Press story which appeared in WaPo in… 1922.

Buy Danish on May 13, 2008 at 10:36 AM

Buy Danish on May 13, 2008 at 10:36 AM

It was required reading in McCain’s senior year of high school.

Valiant on May 13, 2008 at 10:42 AM

I’m no fan of McCain making global warming an important plank of his campaign but I’m dismayed people are sneering at cap-and-trade. It’s sound economics. Obviously it hasn’t worked for Europe.

Come again?

BigD on May 13, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Who would build those nuclear power plants? Most construction is done by those non-English speaking, press 1 for Spanish individuals who are living in the shadows.

moonsbreath on May 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM

As to whether this is good politics for McCain, I Googled “What percentage of Americans believe in Global Warming” and the results are mixed depending on the source.

Obviously some media outlets want headlines to match their agenda of promoting climate change alarmism. Fox and CNN say the number is increasing, but I’m going with Gallup on this issue, because they have less reason to push and agenda and because they have been tracking these results longer:

From a broad perspective, Gallup’s data tracking Americans’ perceptions of the environment are somewhat mixed. On some dimensions, Americans clearly demonstrate a reaction to the growing discussion and emphasis on global warming in the media and indeed as part of the popular culture. Americans now are more likely than they have been in the past to claim understanding of global warming, to recognize that global warming could be a threat in their lifetimes, and to say the effects of global warming have already begun.

At the same time, however, Gallup’s broad measure of worry about environmental issues does not show a concomitant increase in concern. Although there have been fluctuations on this measure of worry over the years, the percentage of Americans who worry a great deal about global warming is no higher now than it was 19 years ago. And the percentage who do worry a great deal — 37% — is still well less than a majority, and in fact lower than the percentage who worry a great deal about such environmental issues as pollution of drinking water, pollution of lakes and reservoirs, and toxic waste in the soil.

Buy Danish on May 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM

MrLynn on May 12, 2008 at 5:54 PM

Yes, lets aggree with someone who instead of looking at the SCIENCE, will concede the debate, AND, just like with McCain Feingold, stifle debate.

We now have BOTH parties saying that global warming is a problem and its caused by CO2 emmisions… but instead of bothering to look at the SCIENCE, they will use it as a Governmental power grab, and folks like will will not get angry enough to try to stand in their way.

Problem is that the Warmists are well organized, even up to the UN level, while those who question are NOT organized… and now any “debate” on the issue is closed at the governmental level.

You do realize that there is NO way to drill for oil in America and increase production if this goes into effect? Because the CO2 caps for the oil industry will be capped at old levels? You do realize that it takes YEARS to build a Reactor? (somthing I know a bit about, Navy Nuclear Power School Class 8006)… And you do realize that we STILL can’t reprocess spent fuel in America by law? You do realize that we still have no place to put Nuc Waste because folks like MCCAIN won’t get Yuka Flats in operation????

McCain could very easily get my vote… he could put forth a coherent energy policy, and submit it to the Senate RIGHT NOW!!! You know… do his DAM JOB!

Romeo13 on May 13, 2008 at 11:02 AM

It’s sound economics. Obviously it hasn’t worked for Europe.

seanhackbarth on May 13, 2008 at 10:25 AM

This should be the quote of the day.

fossten on May 13, 2008 at 11:09 AM

Sorry aobut above post…. didn’t check the paste… was directed at others…

Romeo13 on May 13, 2008 at 11:14 AM

And since the science of all this remains unsettled — especially given the new predictions of a decade-long cooling while carbon continues to increase — the need for action is far from established at all.

Not quite the consensus. You’re certainly not speaking for the scientific community but once again cherry picking news to suite your personal belief system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI

Now that China (and soon India) is the largest source of CO2 emissions, the economics of this issue are starting to turn in the favor of the West. From an economic standpoint, forcing those countries to play catch up environmentally will only help the US economy- creating more jobs, and preventing some US manufcaturing jobs from vanishing.

bayam on May 13, 2008 at 11:28 AM

Have any of you read the open letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, written by climate scientists who take issue with the politicization of global climate change? These credible and climate-knowledgeable scientists say that climate change has a millennial history and that humankind has survived by adapting, not by attempting to change or control a force much larger than man’s efforts.

McCain needs to sit down with informed scientists and economists in order to shape an energy policy that secures our energy, security, and economic needs. Listening to ill-informed fear-mongerers and politically motivated charlatans who are attempting to seize power by making climate change an issue to be tackled with top-down control is both foolish and suicidal.

A successful policy is one that does not fight global climate change but adapts.

onlineanalyst on May 13, 2008 at 11:32 AM

blogpre on May 13, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Hey blogpre, as far as I can see that is your first post ever at HotAir. Who let you in to argue the leftist view and tell us of the “sound reasoning” of McCain? Did McCain approve that message that you wrote above?

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Read the WSJ’s editorial.

It makes several subtle points

1. McCain is stupid.
It points to the fact that he obviously doen’t even know what is in his own policy proposals, and that this is a hallmark of McCain.

2. His vaunted “Maverickness” is just an excuse for him to be a liberal.

3. He is losing the election by this pathetic anti-free market sort of pandering.
If “by some chance he wins” doesn’t sound very like a ringing endorsement by the nation’s leading pro-Republican newspaper.

I hope the idiots who are purportedly running my beloved Republican Party read this editorial and act accordingly.

TexasJew on May 13, 2008 at 11:34 AM

blogpre on May 13, 2008 at 9:54 AM

So your idea is basically that we will just go ahead and destroy the economy and hope for the best. That doesn’t sound like a very good plan to me.

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 11:43 AM

American industry would pay to improve China’s energy infrastructure in a period when we expect to increasingly compete with China economically. Does this make sense?

Paying people to stop doing bad things, and contributing infinite funds to indefinitely prop up Communism? That’s all just business-as-usual for liberals; hardly worth even mentioning.

The part of the Kyoto/McCain plan I like the best is that how they keep calling countries like China and North Korea “developing nations.”

Yeah, right. They’ve been around for thousands of years, but they just need a tiny bit more time to get their feet on the ground.

But America? Oh, forget that. We’ve been around a whole two centuries, so we’ve accomplish everything we ever will. Stick a fork in us; we’re done!

logis on May 13, 2008 at 11:45 AM

You know what…. I was going to hold my nose and vote for McCain but no more. He’s pissed me off so much with the global warming crap that I just can’t do it anymore.

I don’t care if he wins or not. The way I see it is that the presidency is lost to conservatives this cycle no matter if he wins or not. I’ll vote for all my local people and congressmen but McCain has lost my vote on this account.

Contrary to what McCain must believe, you can’t slap me in the face and insult my intelligence and get my vote.

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Not quite the consensus. You’re certainly not speaking for the scientific community but once again cherry picking news to suite your personal belief system.
bayam on May 13, 2008 at 11:28 AM

Sorry to ‘cherry pick’ but saying that consensus is science is an oxymoron and, dare I say, suits your ‘personal belief system’.

As for my personal belief systems, I’ll take the Medieval Optimum over the Little Ice Age any day.

Buy Danish on May 13, 2008 at 11:53 AM

I’m really confused.

Liberals get to demogogue this issue, and conservatives are ‘sposed to keep their mouths shut?…Deny, deny, deny, and offer no alternative solutions?…Not engage?

Why not say, “OK, you may be kinda’ right, and if you’re right, let’s tackle the problem THIS way”

Why not cover all the bases?

At least, that’s how I interpret Gingrich.

That said, I would refer you here.

franksalterego on May 13, 2008 at 11:56 AM

If China’s going to participate in such a system (a doubtful proposition), it looks like it’s going to need all the credits it can get, so I’m not worried about our inadvertently underwriting Chinese technological advancement. What about the malign petrogovernments we’re underwriting now?

Cap and trade as it appears in a white paper or journal article might be “sound economics,” but the question — as always — is how it’s implemented. The global carbon budget figure (total credits issued) has to be figured correctly or it’ll damage the participating economies — this is non-trivial. Credits for offsets or carbon “sinks” have to avoid double-counting. Industries can’t be exempted on political grounds, etc. (e.g. manufacturers have to buy credits but farmers or municipal governments don’t). It’s a significant challenge to make all that work.

DrSteve on May 13, 2008 at 11:57 AM

On my last point, two additional words: Measurement costs.

DrSteve on May 13, 2008 at 12:00 PM

I’m no fan of McCain making global warming an important plank of his campaign but I’m dismayed people are sneering at cap-and-trade. It’s sound economics.

I love the part where we have businesses paying 50-300 billion for something that they get for free today. Everyone knows adding 300 billion to the costs of doing business is America is just sound economics.

But exactly what part of the plan covers the 15-25% unemployment after all manufacturing jobs move to China? I mean yes, this makes perfect economic sense for China, but does it make sense for the U.S.?

Or are we going to pass a cap-and-trade law in the U.S. that will force the entire world to follow our rules and laws and therefore remove the issue of busineses just leaving to avoid the cost (while still producing the CO2 that you’re trying to limit)?

I’m missing the part of this that will work I guess. Why exactly wouldn’t companies move their CO2 heavy production to China, Mexico, India, etc. and just skip out on the costs imposed here? Or is 300 billion not enough of a cost overhead to institute an exodus of the businesses being regulated?

gekkobear on May 13, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Whether CO2 emissions are a problem, or not, Liberals have MADE it an issue.

If they’ve convinced enough people that it IS an issue, they can win elections over it, if they’re not engaged.

If they win elections, be prepared for their solutions…Whether you like it, or not – whether it makes good economic sense, or not, they’re gonna’ jam it right down your throat.

franksalterego on May 13, 2008 at 12:12 PM

Maxx said:
“You know what…. I was going to hold my nose and vote for McCain but no more. He’s pissed me off so much with the global warming crap that I just can’t do it anymore.

I don’t care if he wins or not. The way I see it is that the presidency is lost to conservatives this cycle no matter if he wins or not. I’ll vote for all my local people and congressmen but McCain has lost my vote on this account.

Contrary to what McCain must believe, you can’t slap me in the face and insult my intelligence and get my vote.”

I could not agree with you more!

woodswalking1 on May 13, 2008 at 12:12 PM

DrSteve on May 13, 2008 at 11:57 AM

S02 was PROOVEN to cause Acid Rain. It was a demonstratable thing.

C02 causing global warming? Not demonstratable.

What a lot of you don’t get, is that many of us “sceptics” are ENVIRONMENTALISTS ourselves. But things that actualy can, and should, be fixed are being ignored because of a false fear based on shoddy science.

Romeo13 on May 13, 2008 at 12:16 PM

franksalterego on May 13, 2008 at 12:12 PM

and how did they convince so many people? Becaue the RIGHT was SILENT on the issue.

And now, many of you wish it to remain silent…

Romeo13 on May 13, 2008 at 12:18 PM

As to whether this is good politics for McCain, I Googled “What percentage of Americans believe in Global Warming” and the results are mixed depending on the source.

Actually, it depends on how the question is worded.

The problem is that there is no clear way of asking whether someone “believes” in Global Warming because there is clear definition of exactly what Global Warming IS.

You can qualitatively ask whether you think it’s “possible” that Global Warming might be a “serious” threat, but without quantitative standards, neither the question nor your answer actually mean anything in a scientific sense.

Litterally the FIRST STEP in any scientific theory is to state a clear postulate which can be either proven or disproven through observation or testing. In the case of Global Warming, that has never been done.

In other words, not only is Global Warming not a “proven scientific theory.” It has never even been put forth in terms of a coherent hypothesis which theoretically COULD be proven.

logis on May 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM

To McCain lovers, this is what you get. More taxes and regulations!

mariloubaker on May 13, 2008 at 12:21 PM

blogpre on May 13, 2008 at 9:54 AM

So your idea is basically that we will just go ahead and destroy the economy and hope for the best. That doesn’t sound like a very good plan to me.

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 11:43 AM

Well…what’s your plan?

And I’m not being snide. The problem with all the posters here that don’t agree with McCain is that they’re not seeing reality.

And no, I don’t mean reality as anthropogenic global warming, but reality as in: Barry will use this issue to gut capitalism and national sovereignty. He’s not going to wait for China and India. He’s going to boldly “lead.” He’s going to dig right in. He’ll sell out national sovereignty to the UN faster than you can sing Kumbaya.

The best–the absolute best we can hope for in the current landscape is to elect a President who will do as little damage as possible until it’s obvious this latest chicken-little scenario is nothing more than the End Times Prophecy of the secular Left.

Let’s all just hope that the arctic sea-ice this summer does not retreat. If it doesn’t, I think it just might be the shark-jumping moment for all this hysteria.

But while I agree with everyone who bemoans that there isn’t a credible candidate calling this nonsense the crock it is, I’m not going to stand in the corner and stamp my feet and make it worse by helping to elect a Leftist who will use this “issue” to hawk a ‘global crisis that knows no borders’ and therefore must have an international solution.

And if you help elect him, just watch and see if that doesn’t turn out to be true.

Typhoon on May 13, 2008 at 12:28 PM

Romeo13 on May 13, 2008 at 12:18 PM

Assigning blame never solved anything.

franksalterego on May 13, 2008 at 12:38 PM

And no, I don’t mean reality as anthropogenic global warming, but reality as in: Barry will use this issue to gut capitalism and national sovereignty. He’s not going to wait for China and India. He’s going to boldly “lead.” He’s going to dig right in. He’ll sell out national sovereignty to the UN faster than you can sing Kumbaya.

Typhoon on May 13, 2008 at 12:28 PM

And I’m becoming ever more convinced that McCain will try to do the same. At least Obama is young and not experienced, we might have better luck opposing him than McCain.

I’m not going to stand in the corner and stamp my feet and make it worse by helping to elect a Leftist who will use this “issue” to hawk a ‘global crisis

Typhoon on May 13, 2008 at 12:28 PM

Are you talking about Obama or McCain?

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 12:55 PM

I’m not going to stand in the corner and stamp my feet and make it worse by helping to elect a Leftist who will use this “issue” to hawk a ‘global crisis that knows no borders’ and therefore must have an international solution.
Typhoon on May 13, 2008 at 12:28 PM

The Kyoto Treaty is “an international solution,” is it not?

I will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto. The United States will lead and will lead with a different approach — an approach that speaks to the interests and obligations of every nation. — John McCain

It’s really getting difficult to make a distinction, isn’t it?

Nichevo on May 13, 2008 at 12:57 PM

In other words, not only is Global Warming not a “proven scientific theory.” It has never even been put forth in terms of a coherent hypothesis which theoretically COULD be proven.

logis on May 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM

Actually, the hypothesis that CO2 forces the climate to warm, and the models utilizing that hypothesis, rely on positive feedback from water vapor (the primary ‘greenhouse gas’ in the atmosphere), otherwise the CO2 action wouldn’t amount to a hill o’ beans. Turns out that water vapor forms clouds and provides negative feedback. The hypothesis is falsified. See here:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=BnFfkwmg1K4

Not to mention that geo-historically CO2 levels have risen after, not before, climate warming, thus suggesting that if there is any causal relationship, it is the reverse of that posited by the AGW alarmists.

Then, you have to ask, what is the optimum climate? The one we have now? Or, as someone mentioned above, the Medieval Warm Period, when Greenland was greener, and wine was made in England? A warmer Earth, should it happen, would be a boon to mankind. Unfortunately, we may be nearing the end of the current interglacial, and have only cooling to look forward to. It wasn’t very long ago, geologically, when Boston was under thousands of feet of solid ice.

Is there no one in John McCain’s circle of advisors who can bring reason and rationality to this issue?

MrLynn on May 13, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Are you talking about Obama or McCain?

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 12:55 PM

*Laughing*

I knew someone was going to ask that. But…look, it’s not like I’m happy about it. I’m not. I wish there was someone out there who was standing up and calling this the nonsense it is.

But the sad fact is that someone isn’t out there, and all my wishing isn’t going to change it. What I’m left with is one man of a generation that reveres America, who has lived his life in her service, and another who’s lived a life amongst people that revile her.

Am I deliriously happy with the idea of President McCain? No. Not at all. Particularly if he takes that clueless f*** H*** as his running mate.

But to say that as much as and as many places as I part with McCain, I do trust him with the war and the Court, and I am truly scared for the future of my country by Obama.

So while, yeah, I wish he had a clue on this issue, I think he’s more likely to appoint to his administration people who will at least see the evidence when it becomes overwhelming that this was nonsense, and who doesn’t have ingrained in his being from his birth the idea that the sovereignty of nations is a bad thing.

Typhoon on May 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Whether CO2 emissions are a problem, or not, Liberals have MADE it an issue.

franksalterego on May 13, 2008 at 12:12 PM

Liberals make all sorts of things issues. That doesn’t mean you cave into them at every turn. Let’s not be like Newt and sit on the love seat with Pelosi.

What you are basically saying is the facts don’t matter anymore. I reject that.

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Ed, you have got to have one of the strongest backs I have ever seen. You can carry more water, longer, than any other person I’ve seen. You’re practically toting an ocean now, and you still allow another bucketful to be dumped in.

McCain isn’t worth it Ed. In the end of the race, McCain won’t remember you, and won’t do the things you say he’ll do.

Snake307 on May 13, 2008 at 1:42 PM

Typhoon on May 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Well if that’s the way you feel Typhoon, by all means vote for him. But I cannot. I have no hope that McCain will push any conservative agenda anymore than Obama will.

If McCain becomes president and sells out every vestige of our freedom and destroys our economy with this global warming hoax, I had rather that people won’t be able to point at me and say….. WELL YOU VOTED FOR HIM!!

Of course will not vote for Obama either, I’ll throw my vote away on one of the others in the race… maybe I’ll vote for that wacko Ron Paul, at lease he doesn’t want to tax us to death with the global warming fraud.

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 1:48 PM

McCain isn’t worth it Ed. In the end of the race, McCain won’t remember you, and won’t do the things you say he’ll do.

Snake307 on May 13, 2008 at 1:42 PM

How exactly do you come to the conclusion that this post by Ed Morrissey is in favor of McCain? Rub your eyes and read it again.

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 1:52 PM

Update: Hugh Hewitt notes McCain’s support for nuclear power as a way to trade off for carbon emissions: …McCain has occupied the center on this debate, and the GOP and conservatives should get over it and begin working…

Is that going to be McCain’s campaign slogan? “Get over it!”

I just keep hearing that from all his supporters…

I guess that’s better than the first campaign slogan the McCain-ites were using….”Just shut up & vote McCain you stupid idiot”.

Yep, the new one definitely has more appeal. Sounds like a winner!

Cheesestick on May 13, 2008 at 2:38 PM

What you are basically saying is the facts don’t matter anymore. I reject that.

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Of course will not vote for Obama either, I’ll throw my vote away on one of the others in the race… maybe I’ll vote for that wacko Ron Paul, at lease he doesn’t want to tax us to death with the global warming fraud.

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Here are some facts for you:

Either John McCain or Barrack Obama is going to the next President of the United States. Bottom line is that if you don’t vote for one, you vote for the other. Just ask the handful of die-hard lefties in Florida who voted for Nader in 2000 and spared us President Al Gore on 9-11-01.

Great leaders don’t come along every day. In any society throughout history great leaders have been rare. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be called “The Great” because they’d be no big deal.

In my lifetime, I’ve seen pretty mediocre Republican Presidents, not true at all to the Constitution at all as I see it. All of them statists and all of them in the end more trustful of the government than of the people. Only one–only one–broke the mold.

Yes, you and everyone here is right. McCain is a statist. He’s not a true conservative in the sense to me that he trusts the state over the people.

But the choice is usually like that. very seldom do we get a Reagan. Much more often we get a Bush or a Nixon or a Ford.

But just because we get a Bush or a Nixon doesn’t mean we’d be better off with a McGovern, or a Dukakis, or a Gore, or that Jimmy Carter was the same as Ford would have been.

And this time it’s worse. Way worse. We have a young black cult-of-personality Dem who could rip the guts out of our way of life; who–the deeper you look–practices a kind of Orwellian newspeak in which patriotism is redefined as Leftist dogma, and allows for no criticism or contrary thought.

Voting against him is more than enough reason for me.

Typhoon on May 13, 2008 at 2:54 PM

You know what…. I was going to hold my nose and vote for McCain but no more. He’s pissed me off so much with the global warming crap that I just can’t do it anymore.

I don’t care if he wins or not. The way I see it is that the presidency is lost to conservatives this cycle no matter if he wins or not. I’ll vote for all my local people and congressmen but McCain has lost my vote on this account.

Contrary to what McCain must believe, you can’t slap me in the face and insult my intelligence and get my vote.

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Same here. President Bush isn’t a conservative and McCain is even less conservative than Bush is. I will not vote for him.

The GOP is circling the drain and no one in a position of leadership seems to have the stones to stand up and do anything about it. I’m not writing another check until the party gets its act together. If the modern GOP stands for open borders and the left’s naive environmental absurdities, then it is time for me to find a conservative alternative.

flyfisher on May 13, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Does anybody think McCain cares what anybody else thinks? I will hold my nose when I “pull the lever” and say a silent prayer for us all.

ultracon on May 13, 2008 at 3:00 PM

In other words, not only is Global Warming not a “proven scientific theory.” It has never even been put forth in terms of a coherent hypothesis which theoretically COULD be proven.
logis on May 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM

Actually, the hypothesis that CO2 forces the climate to warm… is falsified.
MrLynn on May 13, 2008 at 1:27 PM

I’m sure that – after the nearly TRILLION dollars that has been spent on Global Warming studies so far – any Global Warming advocate could easily bury you under a thousand reports he claims “confirm” the “theory.”

But that’s not the way science works either. It’s up to the theory’s ADVOCATES to 1) clearly state their hypothesis, and then 2) come up with a test that can disprove their theory. The Global Warmists don’t do that; therefore they are not arguing science, they are arguing theology.

And the discussion should never go beyond that point. If you allow them to saddle you with the burden of figuring out how to test their ill-defined (and therefore constantly changing) hypotheses, you’ve already lost the argument before it begins.

Then, you have to ask, what is the optimum climate?
MrLynn on May 13, 2008 at 1:27 PM

This is not a separate issue; it has to be included within the Global Warmists’ hypothesis, otherwise none of this matters.

What, exactly, is their claim supposed to be? Apparently, something bad is going to happen in precisely 20-200 years. But what, pray tell, is that supposed to be?

Once more, it is up to THEM to put their fuzzy, squirmy, ill-defined fears into a clearly-worded scientific postulate. If you try to “debate” liberals about what’s going on inside their own heads, then you’re arguing idiocy – and losing.

logis on May 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM

Not to mention that geo-historically CO2 levels have risen after, not before, climate warming, thus suggesting that if there is any causal relationship, it is the reverse of that posited by the AGW alarmists.

MrLynn on May 13, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Bingo.

Buy Danish on May 13, 2008 at 3:16 PM

Then there’s cap and trade, which Mr. McCain has backed for years and would, as he put it with some understatement, “change the dynamic of our energy economy.” He noted that Americans have a genius for problem-solving but continued, “The federal government can’t just summon these talents by command – only the free market can draw them out.” To translate: His plan is “market based” insofar as it requires an expensive, invasive government bureaucracy to interfere with the market.

I’m going to investigate this further, but off the top of my head, I find the “logic” used here to show a spectacular lack of memory and the ability to ignore what you said yesterday if it doesn’t meet the needs of today. I’m strongly under the impression that the Cato Institute began the political push for “cap and trade” as a strategy to deal with pollution issues. It’s not my understanding that the Cato Institute is part of the socialist conspiracy. “Cap and trade” certainly makes sense economically as a way of dealing with externalities. Or are we now ignoring economics when it suits us? Are we no better than minimum wage advocates?

[I'm somewhat agnostic about whether carbon dioxide is an externality or not.]

thuja on May 13, 2008 at 3:42 PM

The GOP is circling the drain and no one in a position of leadership seems to have the stones to stand up and do anything about it. I’m not writing another check until the party gets its act together. If the modern GOP stands for open borders and the left’s naive environmental absurdities, then it is time for me to find a conservative alternative.

flyfisher on May 13, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Well said, flyfisher. You are not alone. A McCain victory is the worst option. Liberal policies enacted by a Republican president. Opposition silenced. I have turned the corner. McCain must lose. Republicans can unite against the liberal policies of BO, but will have no choice but to endorse the liberal lite policies of McCain. Iraq and the GWOT are huge issues to me, but BO cannot walk away from the GWOT as easily as McCain can. I live in Illinois where I always have to hold my nose when voting for Republicans, McCain is where I draw the line. The Party has to hit rock bottom and we have at least 6 months to go.

I would like to see Rush Limbaugh as the new RNC chair after McCain is defeated.

Angry Dumbo on May 13, 2008 at 4:15 PM

thuja on May 13, 2008 at 3:42 PM

I’m finding cap and trade policy from CATO from 18 years ago for REAL pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, but so far I’m not finding where they advocate such a system for harmless…. indeed beneficial and essential CO2.

The cap-and-trade program often cited as a success story is the sulfur dioxide permit market created under Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The market has cut acid rain sulfur dioxide emissions from the electric power industry by 40 percent over 1980 levels, at a savings of about $1 billion per year compared to the conventional command-and-control approach. In recent years, the Environmental Protection Agency has initiated a regional cap-and-trade market for nitrogen oxides and is currently considering a proposal to further reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides using cap-and-trade approaches. The EPA is also considering reducing mercury emissions from power plants using a national cap-and-trade program.

Regulation (Cato Institute)

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 4:17 PM

Angry Dumbo on May 13, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Well said, I agree totally.

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 4:26 PM

Good, it is best we maintain radio silence so as to keep the McCain backers as comfortable as possible up through election day. : ))

Angry Dumbo on May 13, 2008 at 4:33 PM

Maxx and Angry Dumbo,

I am not surprised that felloow conservative political junkies share my opinion of McCain and the GOP, but do you have a sense of how regular GOP voters in your area feel?

I live in a Memphis suburb in the 1st District of Mississippi. Today we are having a runoff election to replace Roger Wicker, who replaced Trent Lott. This is a reliably conservative district. That the Dem even has a shot ought to scare the bejesus out of the GOP leaders in Washington. The margin should be real tight, but if I were predicting the outcome I would lean toward Travis Childers, the Democrap. If Greg Davis loses, his defeat is because of gas prices (I paid $3.56 this morning) and extreme Bush fatigue. There is no excitement for anything or anyone related to the GOP around here right now.

If the Dems ever figure out that all they have to do is nominate pro-life and pro-gun candidates, we would never see another Republican majority in our lifetimes.

flyfisher on May 13, 2008 at 4:59 PM

Please take the time to read the letter written by climate scientists that I linked at
onlineanalyst on May 13, 2008 at 11:32 AM

The second link lists the signatories to this letter.

The UN climate report was put together by policy wonks with an agenda. The scientists who are skeptical of the phenomenon of AGW make their points well.

onlineanalyst on May 13, 2008 at 6:38 PM

A McCain victory is the worst option. Liberal policies enacted by a Republican president. Opposition silenced. I have turned the corner. McCain must lose. Republicans can unite against the liberal policies of BO, but will have no choice but to endorse the liberal lite policies of McCain…. I would like to see Rush Limbaugh as the new RNC chair after McCain is defeated.
Angry Dumbo on May 13, 2008 at 4:15 PM

America has survived a Republican minority in Congress and liberal Democrat President, and it can do so again. Unfortunately, at this point, I see that as the best-case scenario. Our founders very wisely saw to it that a dedicated minority can prevent a great deal of damage.

The worst-case scenario is a President McCain rubber-stamping liberal programs and a Democrat-Controlled Congress returning the favor on his liberal oppointments.

The second-worst-case scenario would be a war between President McCain and the Republican opposition. If that happens, these idiots who’ve been whining that we don’t support McCain quite fervently enough to suit them are going to find out the hard way what the word “schism” REALLY means.

logis on May 13, 2008 at 7:25 PM

I’m finding cap and trade policy from CATO from 18 years ago for REAL pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, but so far I’m not finding where they advocate such a system for harmless…. indeed beneficial and essential CO2.

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 4:17 PM

Thanks for the information about Cato and cap and trade. The value of McCain’s carbon market does boil (pun intended) down to when CO2 becomes a pollutant–an issue which I have decided to become militantly agnostic in the face of the evidence presented by both sides. Given the popularity of the climate change view, I don’t see how we can blame McCain for trying to address these fears. Obama will address them anyway.

thuja on May 13, 2008 at 8:17 PM

flyfisher on May 13, 2008 at 4:59 PM

I know a few conservatives and liberals at work. Lately it seems everybody, either liberal or conservative really enjoyed watching the good ship Hillary sink to the bottom. The liberals I know don’t like Hillary either and are also not thrilled with Obama.

But with the conservatives I sense a feeling of dread for what’s to come, I haven’t found one yet that likes McCain and of course nobody knows what to do about it because we have no choice.

But maybe we are better off if Obama wins. Think of it this way, everybody now blames the Republicans for high gas prices and all the problems. That’s because they only see who is in the Oval Office, they don’t stop to think that Republicans aren’t really in charge right now. IT’S THE DEMOCRATS THAT ARE IN CHARGE RIGHT NOW, THEY CONTROL BOTH HOUSES AND THAT’S WERE THINGS GET DONE…. OR DON’T GET DONE.

So maybe if we retain enough Republicans to do a lot of serious blocking of nutball leftist legislation and let the Democrats have the White House, people might finally realize that things are still getting worst and clearly the Democrats are in charge. They won’t have Bush to kick around anymore.

You might remember, nobody was better for getting Republicans elected than Bill Clinton.

McCain will not get my vote.

Maxx on May 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM

Re: All of you who would vote for Obambi over McCain, or for a third-party candidate, ponder this, from a staunch conservative friend:

“Faced with a choice between a man who would sell out Israel and Iraq to the Iranians and a man who promises to do something about global warming while standing by Israel and Iraq, is there really a choice?”

No, much as I abhor McCain’s foolishness, there really isn’t any choice. I don’t want the disaster Obambi promises on my hands, and I don’t think most of you do, either.

MrLynn on May 13, 2008 at 10:49 PM

we’re doomed

Snooper on May 14, 2008 at 1:47 AM