Inhofe: Lieberman-Warner a regressive tax with no benefits
posted at 12:50 pm on June 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The Senate will vote this week on a bill that will raise energy prices, create a huge federal bureaucracy when we have too many as it is, and will lower carbon emissions over the next 25 years by half of what we’ve accomplished over the last six through free-market initiatives. Who would vote for such a monstrosity? Most of the Senate, if the debate vote gives any indication. Senator James Inhofe warns against the passage of the massive bill, pointing out that the bill hurts the poor and working class most of all:
With average gas prices across the country approaching $4 a gallon, it may be hard to believe, but the U.S. Senate is considering legislation this week that will further drive up the cost at the pump.
The Senate is debating a global warming bill that will create the largest expansion of the federal government since FDR’s New Deal, complete with a brand new, unelected bureaucracy. The Lieberman-Warner bill (America’s Climate Security Act) represents the largest tax increase in U.S. history and the biggest pork bill ever contemplated with trillions of dollars in giveaways. Well-heeled lobbyists are already plotting how to divide up the federal largesse. The handouts offered by the sponsors of this bill come straight from the pockets of families and workers in the form of lost jobs, higher gas, power and heating bills, and more expensive consumer goods.
Various analyses show that Lieberman-Warner would result in higher prices at the gas pump, between 41 cents and $1 per gallon by 2030. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says Lieberman-Warner would effectively raise taxes on Americans by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. The federal Energy Information Administration says the bill would result in a 9.5% drop in manufacturing output and higher energy costs.
Carbon caps will have an especially harmful impact on low-income Americans and those with fixed incomes. A recent CBO report found: “Most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households.”
Any policy that drives up energy costs will have a disproportionate effect on lower-wage earners and those with fixed incomes. Energy prices affect prices of all goods brought to market, which erodes buying power through inflation. We saw this in the 1970s when Congress, as it does now, restricts domestic development of energy supplies and attempts to tax or regulate energy production.
As the cost of goods goup, the proportion of disposable income declines, which means that people wind up buying less. This proportional effect on disposable income increases for those earning less, who use a higher percentage of their wages for essentials. The squeeze results in a lower standard of living for those who can ill afford it, while remaining more or less a nuisance for those in the higher tax brackets.
Across the board, however, consumer confidence will drop and capital investment will dry up. The economy will start declining as prices rise in this manner as investors move to defensive postures. The economy will turn towards “stagflation”, that condition we saw thirty years ago that resulted from economic mismanagement but at the core was caused by energy shocks. And Lieberman-Warner promises a return to those policies.
What does it produce? A 1.4% reduction of CO2 in the overall atmosphere by 2050. We have lowered American emissions of CO2 by twice that in six years, thanks to the Bush administration’s efforts to use the free market to press for emissions improvements. In fact, we have outperformed Europe in that regard — and they’re using a system similar to Lieberman-Warner.
Why should we adopt failure in place of success? We’ll talk to Senator Inhofe today on the Ed Morrissey Show about this bill at 3 pm ET.
Update: Interview added:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
“The Senate … will create the largest expansion of the federal government since FDR’s New Deal”
This line could also lead every story about congress.
JellyToast on June 3, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Really?! I can imagine KayBaily but surely not Cornyn?
Please tell me Cornyn doesn’t support this garbage. I’m calling his office right now.
edgehead on June 3, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Sound like a speech that could be delivered by Obama, Clinton, or McCain?
It’s part of the Program of the Communist Party USA.
That’s why none of them (Obama, Clinton, nor McCain) can be our next POTUS. All of them want the same thing, and it would destroy our country as we know it.
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 5:10 PM
I neglected to mention that “God Bless America” actually starts with the following:
(emphasis mine, as usual)
Our Congress sang “God Bless America” on the steps of the Capitol building on 9/11/2001.
Let’s ask them to do it again.
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Let me see, CNN money.com has gas prices in the middle east area round .50-.90 cents per gallon. Venezuela they are even less, I believe.
Has nothing at all to do with the fact they produce their own oil.
Funny, how the obvious can escape so many people.
JellyToast on June 3, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Hey areo - My kids are saving like crazy just for the eventuality you are writing about. However, demanding that I give up any, albeit only partial, proceeds from my contributions at this late date is a bit unthinking an selfish on your behalf. But, I’ll make you a deal; I’ll be dead before you need to collect so if you want, you can lay claim to my $600K after I’m in valhalla.
What’s this about putting children through college? I put myself through college working 3 jobs. I then spent several years in the Army, too late for GI bill, I already paid for it. This put me rather late for the work force. I then was constantly told to wait my chance. it would come. Then came the me-here-now generation that jumped ahead of everyone. So I am part of the generation that never got to drive the train or blow the whistle. I am a “Son of Martha.” We just kept the bolts tight so the “Sons of Mary” could sleep peacfully trough their journey. (See Kipling) My kids worked their ways through college without scholarchips and all got advanced or professional degrees. One was valedictorian, but still did not qualify for a scholarship because she had saved for college.
Meanwhile, you can put a stop to all this by getting off your dead camp stool and working to get your senators and congressmen replaced.
Old Country Boy on June 3, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Well, as long as Charlie Rangel gets to keep his Cadillac, I’m fine with it.
labrat on June 3, 2008 at 5:21 PM
I’m sure they had their fingers crossed.
labrat on June 3, 2008 at 5:25 PM
One reason I’m proud of my friends and neighbors in Oklahoma, besides their two senators, we are self sufficient, just the way “aero: wants us to be. When you see the hurricaine in Florida or New Orleans, the fires in Californis, the floods on the eastern rivers; all you saw was people with their hands out wanting Government help. When the Murrau building was blown in OKC, Connie Chung didn’t think we new how to handle it. We not only knew how, we taught the rest of the country. Although help was gratefully offered, it was not demanded. When the F5 tornado devistated OKC, We did it ourselves. There were no pictures of victims with their hands out. I have been sawing trees for six months since the ice storm (global warming?) We didn’t ask for help or use insurance, but the county did get aid for disposal of trees. Come on America, grow up! Try standing on your own 600 million feet!
Old Country Boy on June 3, 2008 at 5:36 PM
I can’t take your $600K when you are gone because it was spent before you retired - on the generation before you, or stolen by the government to pay for other programs. I can’t use my own $600K+ when I retire because it will be spent (and then some) on the Boomers’ retirement costs. I get the fact that you and the Boomers and I all paid into the system and that therefore we deserve the money that we paid in to come back to us. But if Boomers won’t wait 5 more years to retire or agree to take less benefits, my generation will not get to retire at all unless we have saved our brains out since we were 20 years old. Some of us have been saving, but it will get harder and harder to continue to do so as the overall tax burden increases on us.
As for putting our children through college…I worked three jobs and got scholarships to pay my way through college and grad school, too. I intend to make my children work for it as well, but it won’t be enough for them no matter how many jobs they take while they’re in college. We will HAVE to help them if tuition and housing costs continue to rise at the rate they have been. The math doesn’t work otherwise. And if they don’t get degrees, they probably won’t earn enough to support me and their old man when we’re old and have no Social Security or Medicare to fall back on.
Finally, I don’t need to change my representation in Congress because I live in Texas, and my two Senators vote the way I want them to about 98% of the time. My Representative is also conservative and always votes the way I would want him to. I’m helpless as far as that goes, other than venting my spleen on the internet.
aero on June 3, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Actually that is not correct. CO2 has no impact on the earth’s temperature, that is just the big lie that has been pushed for so long that unfortunately lots of people have come to believe it.
Firstly CO2 is the RESULT of higher temperatures not the cause. The Sunspot Cycle drives variation in climate, see this chart from NASA and see that its about a ten to twelve year cycle. When the earth is warmer more CO2 is released from the oceans. But CO2 does not drive the temperature change, the sun does that. CO2 is a minority gas in the atmosphere that only makes up far less than one percent (.038% to be exact). CO2 is an essential gas which plant life requires in order to grow.
Here is what scientists without economic interest in the global warming fraud have to say about CO2
Here is a preview of the video where these scientists make all of the statements above. I don’t think this is the entire video but its still worth watching.
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM
True Dat. Good job Maxx.
People need to know the real truth,
not the Socialist Gore-Bull Warming lie.
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Well, areo. I think you’re paying your fare. I may not totally agree with you, but I respect your opinions. One way out is that TX and OK could form their own country and let the blue states freeze in the dark. That way we wouldn’t have to worry about the politics of global warming. Of course, Texas would have to learn how to play football first.
Old Country Boy on June 3, 2008 at 6:07 PM
LOL! Mutual respect and a truce, then, OCB! :-)
aero on June 3, 2008 at 6:11 PM
letget on June 3, 2008 at 12:58 PM
and
About 75% of the Senate voted to DEBATE the bill which is way different than supporting it. I don’t know how the Texas Senators voted but it’s too early to say they actually support it at this time.
I am really hoping some of the Senators find a little fire in their bellies to flat out call global warming the fraud that it clearly is, that’s what we need to really starting fighting this battle.
This crap has been going on since the early 1980’s and we have wasted nearly a trillion dollars on it to date. That’s enough, it’s time for the global warming scammers to get off the global warming gravy train, they have live at public expense far too long already. Let these people go get real jobs.
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Warner is one of my senators and is nothing but a rino. He’s also a member of McCain’s Gang of 14. His claim to fame is he was once Mr Elizabeth Taylor. He’s decided not to run again and I’m really sorry because I wanted the opportunity to vote against him. He’s another poster boy for term limits. Imagine, a republican voting for more taxes. On the other hand, Jim Gilmore former governor of Virginia will probably be the repub’s nominee. Gilmore’s claim to fame is he turned Virginia into a garbage dump for the entire east coast. Literally.
abcurtis on June 3, 2008 at 6:44 PM
I meant to say Gilmore will be the repub’s nominee for Warner’s senate seat.
abcurtis on June 3, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM
You might want to do your research better it absolutely has an impact. That is why during the dinosaur Cretaceous as I said because of volcanic activity the earth was going through global warming. CO2 is what keeps the warmth in and the planet warm. If we have NO CO2 we have a cold planet! But, to your point it depends on what scientist you want to believe.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms Earth. But just how much warming you get depends on where you put your continents.
If adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere creates a greenhouse effect that warms Earth, it must have happened in the past. That’s why paleoclimatology, once a small and esoteric field, is such a growth industry these days, with legions of geologists trying to glean past temperatures and CO2 levels from rocks, and legions of climate modelers trying to tell us what it all means–not only for the past but also for the future of Earth’s climate. On the whole, the results have been what you’d expect. When carbon dioxide levels were low, the climate was cold, and when they were high, the climate was warm, says climatologist Thomas Crowley of Texas A&M; University.
But lately two glaring exceptions to that simple rule have turned up. During the Ordovician Period, 440 million years ago, there seems to have been 16 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is today–and yet, judging from the gravelly deposits it left behind, there was also an ice sheet near the South Pole that was four-fifths the size of present-day Antarctica. The second exception is even more troubling. The Cretaceous Period, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and CO2 levels were about eight times what they are today, has been one of the most popular case studies for global warming forecasters. And everyone knows what the climate was like during the dinosaurs’ heyday: steamy. Or was it? The latest evidence, reported just this past summer by British researchers, suggests that temperatures in the tropics 95 million years ago were no higher than they are now; and while it was a lot warmer at the poles than it is today, it was still freezing cold.
What happened to Earth’s greenhouse during these two periods? Climate modelers are beginning to believe the solution to both puzzles may be the same: geography. Carbon dioxide does tend to warm the planet–no one is questioning that–but the climate you actually end up with depends to a great degree on how you arrange your continents.
In the case of the Ordovician, Crowley thinks, the solution is fairly straightforward. He and his co-worker Steven Baum have spent the past couple of years recreating the Ordovician Earth in their computer and trying to understand how it could have supported glaciers. They got help from the sun: according to astrophysicists it was 4 percent dimmer 440 million years ago than it is today, which means that although the Ordovician greenhouse had 16 times as much heat-trapping CO2, it also had less heat to trap. But Crowley and Baum calculated that the net greenhouse effect was still equivalent to what you’d get by quadrupling CO2 levels today. In other words, an ice sheet should have stood little chance of surviving.
The survival of a permanent ice sheet depends less on whether it gets cold enough to snow in winter than on whether it gets warm enough in summer to melt all the previous winter’s snow. And the key to the Ordovician ice sheet, says Crowley, is the fact that most of the continents were joined together into one roughly circular landmass called Gondwanaland, whose southern edge was just over the South Pole 440 million years ago. In the interior of the supercontinent the climate was extreme- Midwestern: cold winters and hot summers and no permanent ice. But along the coast, the ocean–which warms far more slowly than the land because of its tremendous heat-storage capacity–put a damper on this seasonal cycle. The moderating effect of the water mutes the amount of summer warming you get, says Crowley.
People who live in places like Maine today know what muted summers are like; along the southern coast of Gondwanaland 440 million years ago, the summers would have been worse than muted. The wind blowing in from offshore was blowing over water that was right at the South Pole, and it was cold indeed. The global average temperature in Crowley and Baum’s simulated Ordovician was 64 degrees–14 degrees hotter than today. But along the southern margin of Gondwanaland, three feet of snow survived the summer each year, becoming part of thickening ice sheets.
Then around 430 million years ago the ice sheets disappeared. Crowley and Baum’s simulations point to an explanation that sounds paradoxical only at first: Gondwanaland was drifting southward at the time, and the farther south it went, the smaller the ice sheets became. As the center of the supercontinent came closer to the South Pole, the winters in the interior became colder–but the land still warmed up enough in summer to melt the snow. Meanwhile, what had been the southern, glaciated edge of Gondwanaland moved north into warmer waters. The glaciers soon vanished.
Thus the Ordovician mystery no longer seems so mysterious. The Cretaceous Period, though, is another story. Over the years, various analyses of the carbon locked in Cretaceous limestones–including the great chalk beds, formed from the corpses of countless plankton, that gave the period its name–have convinced researchers that the CO2 level in the Cretaceous atmosphere was eight times what it is today. Analyses of oxygen isotopes, meanwhile, have suggested that the Cretaceous climate was appropriately toasty–perhaps 20 degrees warmer than today. A hothouse climate would explain why paleontologists have found fossils indicating that tropical plants and reef corals survived at higher latitudes in the Cretaceous than they do today.
Yet the evidence for the hothouse, says geologist Bruce Sellwood of the University of Reading, has never been conclusive. As a snapshot of global climate history, the rocks that went into the isotopic analyses were far from perfect. For one thing, they differed in age by as much as 30 million years. For another, most of them came from the northern mid- latitudes, and almost none from the tropics. That just reflects the availability of chalk outcrops in Europe and North America, explains Sellwood.
He and his colleagues Greg Price and Paul Valdes set out to get a sharper picture of the Cretaceous climate. They limited their analysis to sedimentary rocks dating from a relatively small window of time around 95 million years ago. We still have 7 million years to play with, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the generalizations you got before, says Sellwood. The Reading workers also got some of the first solid information on tropical temperatures in the Cretaceous by analyzing 95-million-year-old sediments drilled recently from the ocean floor.
The results suggest that the Cretaceous was much cooler than previously thought. Temperatures at the poles were supposed to have averaged around 50 degrees, but Sellwood’s group claims they actually hovered around freezing. And the tropics, previously thought to have been 10 degrees warmer than today, were no warmer at all.
Why was the planet so cool, given all that CO2 in the atmosphere, and why was there so little difference between the poles and the tropics? Like Crowley and Baum, Valdes is looking for answers in computer models. And like them, he is finding that geography matters.
Earth 95 million years ago was a world of shallow seas. The landmasses no longer formed a supercontinent, but they remained close together, and because sea levels were high during the Cretaceous, the oceans flooded into the interiors of many continents. One of these shallow seas, for example, cut North America in half from Canada to Mexico. And what all of them did, according to Valdes, was carry humid air into the heart of continents, where it created heavy cloud cover that blocked sunlight and cooled the Earth. There are a lot of arguments and uncertainties about clouds, Valdes acknowledges–clouds can also trap heat rising from Earth’s surface–but in our model the clouds increase and create cooling.
Geography may also help explain why polar temperatures in the Cretaceous were so close to tropical ones. In today’s world, warm water is carried north in the Atlantic to just south of Greenland, where it cools, sinks to the bottom of the ocean, and flows back south. Valdes thinks that in the Cretaceous this conveyor belt circulation may have been shallower– which would have made it faster at transporting heat out of the tropics. In the Cretaceous, the gap between America and Europe was very small, he says. There wasn’t much of an Atlantic. So maybe the water didn’t go down deep, it just recirculated and warmed up more and more, and so you didn’t have such a big temperature gradient. I’m waving my hands around, but it’s a strong hypothesis you can test–which is what Valdes hopes to do in the near future with a new model that incorporates realistic ocean currents.
The computer models that have been used to forecast global warming don’t incorporate realistic ocean currents, and their geography is pretty crude, too. Sellwood thinks that’s a reason to be more skeptical of their forecasts–although no less cautious about polluting the atmosphere. This research tells us that the link between carbon dioxide and global warming isn’t as secure as we all imagine, he says. But what I would hate to see happening is governments leaping on this and saying, ‘Ah, there is no link between carbon dioxide and climate, and therefore we can go on with what we’re doing now or even worse.’ This work shows the whole climate system is much more complex than we imagined. That’s actually a word of warning. To pump out huge amounts of carbon dioxide when we don’t know how the system works is a pretty dangerous thing.
xler8bmw on June 3, 2008 at 6:58 PM
True Dat. Good job Maxx.
People need to know the real truth,
not the Socialist Gore-Bull Warming lie.
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 6:07 PM
I certainly don’t believe in goricals crap! If you did your research he is saying that it is caused by humans which is an absolute lie!
There is also a great documentary on how the earth was created and the different periods of climate it experienced. Oh and global warming is the sun which continues to get hotter and will continue to get hotter.
xler8bmw on June 3, 2008 at 7:01 PM
This is an orchestrated effort to reshape the United States of America into some EcoWeenie clone of Europe plane and simple.
The states with shale oil or petroleum reserves should give the Feds the middle finger and drill like there’s no tomorrow, because the way things are going there may not be a tomorrow.
Maxine Waters let slip the agenda, force change by any means necessary and if the “energy” companies don’t toe the line, they will be nationalized and eliminated.
In one year this will either be a painful memory or we will be huddled around bonfires trying to find our next meal as the entire economy collapses from back door socialization and neo-marxism.
States Rights FTW!
Neo on June 3, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Maxx I never said CO2 is what caused the warmth. But, like a blanket it keeps the planet warm.
xler8bmw on June 3, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Any gas you filter sunlight through will warm. But CO2 has less capacity to absorb heat from sunlight than either water vapor H2O, or oxygen. And since C02 is much less prevalent in the atmosphere it has no overall effect on warming or cooling.
The sun provides the heat to warm the earth’s atmosphere, no heat is generated by the atmosphere itself. No matter what combination of gases exist in the atmosphere the sun is still the controlling factor because it’s the source of the heat.
Are you saying that CO2 of itself can produce heat? I can assure you it has no such property.
CO2 is what you exhale, it’s the fizz in your Coca Cola, it is totally harmless and in fact beneficial and essential.
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM
xler8bmw on June 3, 2008 at 6:58 PM
This page does a fair job of explaining why CO2 cannot be a driver for any type of climate change. The page is written by Gary Novak, an Independent Scientist and is not bias on the topic like most sites. Give it a try.
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Good grief!
Y’know both Cornyn and Hutchison have websites where you can actually read for yourself where they stand on issues and how they vote INSTEAD of listening to the smear that is passed around as gospel!
Texas Gal on June 3, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM
This from NASA might interest you:
1 Our Sun may seem an enduring, unwavering beacon in the sky, but in truth it has a “heartbeat” of sorts–a pulsation between dimmer and brighter phases so slow that it only “beats” 9 times each century!
It’s understandable that you might not have noticed. The pulsing is not only slow, it’s also subtle. The total energy coming from the Sun only varies by about 0.1% over each 11-year cycle. For a long time scientists didn’t notice it either, which is why the Sun’s intensity is called, ironically, the “solar constant.”
The intensity of the Sun varies along with the 11-year sunspot cycle. When sunspots are numerous the solar constant is high (about 1367 W/m2); when sunspots are scarce the value is low (about 1365 W/m2). Eleven years isn’t the only “beat,” however. The solar constant can fluctuate by ~0.1% over days and weeks as sunspots grow and dissipate. The solar constant also drifts by 0.2% to 0.6% over many centuries, according to scientists who study tree rings.
These small changes can affect Earth in a big way. For example, between 1645 and 1715 (a period astronomers call the “Maunder Minimum”) the sunspot cycle stopped; the face of the Sun was nearly blank for 70 years. At the same time Europe was hit by an extraordinary cold spell: the Thames River in London froze, glaciers advanced in the Alps, and northern sea ice increased. An earlier centuries-long surge in solar activity (inferred from studies of tree rings) had the opposite effect: Vikings were able to settle the thawed-out coast of Greenland in the 980s, and even grow enough wheat there to export the surplus to Scandinavia.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solcon.htm
unseen on June 3, 2008 at 8:02 PM
xler8bmw on June 3, 2008 at 6:58 PM
The sun’s output is not constant, it varies slightly over time. Sunspots are present when the sun’s output is higher than normal. It is this increase in output that causes the warmer periods and lower solar output that causes cooling periods. Science has known this for some time.
Also, this is the fourth time this century a climate change fraud has been attempted.
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 8:05 PM
unseen on June 3, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Excellent article unseen, thank you for that, I just bookmarked it. The article goes a long way to make a simple point, the temperature of the atmosphere is slave to the sun.
We now know that other planets in our solar system experienced warming at the same time earth did. Unless the Martians were driving too many SUV’s it’s pretty obvious the cause was increased output from the sun.
It’s all a lot more simple than the scammer global warmers want you to know. People really need to wake up.
Thanks again for the article !!
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM
The properties of CO2 allow the sunlight to enter but it traps some of the reflected sunlight that would have gone into space. From this property the entire man-made global warming craze was born.
The theory is if you increase CO2 due to its trapping property then if ALL things are equal then the earth will warm. While techincally correct, the image of the entire earth and sun system staying constant is laughable.
there are complex interactions that humans have no idea work, there are most likely interactions we do not even know about. To base the destruction of your entire way of life on such flimsy “proof” and “logic” is beyond the pale.
some of those interactions we do not fully understand:
CO2 interacts with the ocean. As temputures goes up more CO2 is released from the ocean but the ocean’s are not constant either and as circulation events occur like El Nino and La nina huge amounts of CO2 are released and trapped respectivily. the ocean holds 60 times more Co2 than the atmosphere. Most scientists think the the entire Atmosphereic CO2 is exchanged with the ocean every 5 years. If the increased CO2 impacts plant life in the ocean then more plants like Alge and Plakton will be produced which will cause the growth of more animal life from whales to clams. All of this life cycle will trap Carbon from the water and deposit it at the bottom of the ocean.
The addtional CO2 in the atmosphere due to its acidic propperties will increase erosion of silca based rock which when the runoff hits the sea will cause limestone to be produced from the chemical interact. trapping carbon
The Sun cycles point the way since Mars and Jupiter are also showing warming trends.
From just these it is patently clear that there is so many interactions and so much complexitiy that we will never know with 100% certainity what drives climate. and our ability to control climate will never happen.
It is also clear that instead of choking our economy to “fight” the warming or cooling we should promote ways to adapt to the changes if they occur. Tecnology will be needed to prevent flooding (maybe). To grow food in hotter or colder climates less or more rainfall etc. homes can be designed to use less energy to heat and cool themselves, to store water etc. The possiblites for the economic growth from these things to adapt to change is enourmous. The technology will require energy to put into place. The same energy our leaders are going to restrct so at the time that we need massive growth they want to conserve! stupid idiots.
unseen on June 3, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 8:18 PM
no problem. Personally I think it is the SUN also. since we are in a period of very low sunspot activity I see a very cold and very deadly winter coming. With the high fuel bills many people are going to be hurting this winter. ESP in places like Russia and Maine and Canada.
unseen on June 3, 2008 at 8:33 PM
No, that is Al Gore talking, CO2 does no such thing. How could it, it isn’t even capable of absorbing as much energy as either water vapor or oxygen. And I’m talking on a molecule by molecule comparison, I’m not even including the fact that CO2 is exceedingly rare in the atmosphere compared to either water vapor or oxygen.
Besides, the earth does not cool by means of radiating heat into space. If that is the only way the earth had as a means to cool, the earth would have burned up on day 2.
The earth cools by means of evaporation of water, it does not rely on transferring heat to space as Al Gore claims. It does however transfer a very tiny amount of it’s heat into space via IR radiation, but the amount is totally insignificant and plays no significant part in how the earth cools.
The earth has had more than ten times the amount of CO2 in it’s atmosphere than today with no ill effect. CO2 is a blessing that causes plants to grow faster thus supplying more food for a hungry world.
But the global warmers make CO2 the “bad guy” because you cannot have hardly any type of combustion without creating some CO2. Thus to control/TAX CO2 is to control all business and to gain control over individuals based on a fraud.
CO2 is where the money is for this fraud and that is why they denounce it as the cause of global warming, which of course is not happening.
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Here is another discussion about the global warming if you are interested. About how while our country is embracing it those countries that were early adopters are having second thoughts….
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/big-government-environmentalism-wears-out-its-welcome/
unseen on June 3, 2008 at 8:39 PM
John McCain thinks he knows more about Global Warming than Maxx, unseen, and others.
Ha!
Buy Danish on June 3, 2008 at 8:44 PM
unseen on June 3, 2008 at 8:39 PM
I just scanned over that article and bookmarked it too for later. From the quick read I did, it is information I already had but it is a more recent article, so it will be helpful.
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 8:52 PM
So which lobbies are pushing the legislators to find another way to tax us into being serfs for the government? Who is benefitting from this sham legislatrion and which legislators are on the take?
onlineanalyst on June 3, 2008 at 8:57 PM
The earth has had more than ten times the amount of CO2 in it’s atmosphere than today with no ill effect. CO2 is a blessing that causes plants to grow faster thus supplying more food for a hungry world.
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Actually there has been periods that it has had 350 times as much. albedo (the amount of Sunlight reflected back to space) does play a role in our climate. the evaporation also plays a role as it transports heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere. space is a very cold very dark place. If not for the heat trapping qualities of earth we would be an ice ball.
the Global warmers point to Venus as an example of what we could face. they forget to mention 2 important things. Venus is much closer to the Sun thus it would be warming regardless of the Co2. And the atmosphere is made of 95+% of CO2. both of these things can not happen on earth thus Venus is a bad example.
Mars is a better example. It has little CO2 is farther away than Earth yet it stillhas signs of warming.
unseen on June 3, 2008 at 8:57 PM
onlineanalyst on June 3, 2008 at 8:57 PM
GE is pushing it. They stand to make billions from the green movement with CFL, wind turbines, clean locomotives, which also means that NBC, CNBC and MSNBC are pushing it. solar companies are pushing it of course. Electric companies are opposed to the present bill but want some type of cost put on carbon so then can plan on how to build the next power stations. There are some big business that are all for this. I wonder if the Congress put in a passage that companies were not allowed to move offshore and still sell their crap here if they would be still in favor of the bill.
unseen on June 3, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Buy Danish on June 3, 2008 at 8:44 PM
Well considering I took earth sciences as my major in college and minored in geology I think I might have alittle better handle on it than someone that flies to Alaska and announces he had a conversion because he saw some ice melting.
unseen on June 3, 2008 at 9:03 PM
That is the question all media should be asking. Find out who is paying Al Gore to carry on his “crusade” and you will have the answer. I don’t know specifically who is pushing it, but clearly the U.N. stands to gain huge. They have been trying to figure out a way to introduce a global tax since their beginning. This would accomplish that purpose.
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 9:06 PM
That’s true, but the amount of CO2 in the air has nothing to do with how much reflectivity the atmosphere has for incoming sunlight. Certainly when you have a lot of cloud cover, underneath the clouds its cooler, but the clouds are WATER VAPOR not CO2.
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 9:13 PM
True CO2 lets all sunlight in. It is the reflected sunlight that is a different wave legth that CO2 traps.
Clouds on the other hand reflect the sunlight before it can enter the atmosphere. Cloud cover will trap in heat below them while at the same time reflecting the sunlight coming in from space. thus clouds play a very complex little understood cycle for our climate. CO2 is one of the lesser “greenhouse gases”. Water vapor and methane are much more an influence on climate then CO2 will ever be regardless of the parts per million it has in the atmosphere.
So the Congress should be capping the number of times you can fart instead of the number of times you can exhale. In fact I could see where the Congress in all their wisdom will suggest we outlaw beans from our diets so we don’t fart as much. the sad part is most envirowackos will rejoice and think that is a wonderful idea.
unseen on June 3, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 9:13 PM
think of a desert to understand cloud cover. Very hot in the day, very cold at night. During the day it is warmed by the Sun. at night since there is no clouds all the heat esacpes back into the atmosphere and space.
Now think of a rainy chilly day. It is cold because the Sun light can not get thru. however even with little sunlight the day does not get as cold as a desert at night because the clouds will trap what little heat there was and reflect it back to the ground.
unseen on June 3, 2008 at 9:28 PM
If this kind of bill ever passes, every manufacturing job in America will flee the country to get away from the death grip of such heavy-handed government mandates and to keep costs down enough to turn a profit in the world economy. Think Ford Motor Company taking its new operation to Mexico.
It would be suicide for our economy.
Webutante on June 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM
No my friend, heat cannot EVER escape into space, except for the very tiny amount that leaves via IR radiation. Space is a vacuum.
There are three modes of heat transfer:
1) Conduction: transfer of heat through a solid
2) Convection: transfer of heat through a liquid or gas
3) Radiation: transfer of heat via IR radiation (photons)
The first two types of transfer are very efficient. Radiation via IR radiation is not efficient at all compared to the first two.
No heat can escape by either conduction or convection because there is no solid, liquid or gas to transfer any heat to, space is a vacuum.
IR radiation is only a trace amount of heat that requires especially sensitive equipment to detect, IR sensors, only developed within the last forty years or so. Night vision equipment are examples of equipment that can detect the IR trace heat.
While it’s true that the sun sends it’s energy to us via radiation, that is only possible because of the sun’s extreme temperature, surface temperature at around 7,000 degrees or so. Radiation of heat, which CAN happen through a vacuum become more efficient as the “sender” becomes hotter.
Since the earth is about 7,000 degrees cooler than the sun, the amount of heat that can escape the earth via IR radiation is exceedingly small, you would need special equipment to detect it.
So, the earth cools mostly by evaporation and/or transpiration which are essentially the same thing except transpiration is what it’s called when plant life evaporates water in the process of photosynthesis.
It takes an enormous amount of energy to evaporate the oceans fast enough to provide our fresh water, clouds form after the water evaporates and the wind pushes the clouds overland. When the right atmospheric conditions are met, the water vapor condenses and rain falls. The sun’s energy is used up in this process…. we need it all, this energy never leaves the earth. At some point it becomes mass, like dead vegetation that forms topsoil.
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 10:16 PM
unseen on June 3, 2008 at 9:28 PM
I agree that cloud cover can hold heat in a location and I agree that lack of cloud cover can and will cause the heat to dissipate more quickly.
But the point of the above post is that the earth does NOT depend on losing heat to space in order to cool. Because no significant amount of heat can be lost to space, because space is a vacuum that will not allow such transfer.
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 10:26 PM
unseen on June 3, 2008 at 9:28 PM
When you get time, read this post I made some time ago:
Maxx on August 12, 2007 at 2:55 PM
It’s a long post so I don’t want to duplicate it here, but in it I go into great detail on the water cycle, evaporation and why IR (infrared) radiation is not, and cannot support any significant cooling of the earth.
I hope you will read it, I think you will find it interesting. And you will be glad to hear that it was written with a lot more care than any post I’ve made tonight.
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 10:49 PM
That was a low blow.
Johan Klaus on June 4, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Can I just say, as an Oklahoman, that between Inhofe and Coburn, our Senate delegation KICKS ASS.
sachsen on June 4, 2008 at 12:38 AM
The U.S. congress can find more ways to waste our money than my grandchildren can find mischief
Johan Klaus on June 4, 2008 at 12:48 AM
If we keep our economy and country strong, we can then adapt to any “climate change”, whatever its cause (uncontrollable solar cycles or human influenced), -whether than means more sunscreen or heavier insulation.
First keep yourself strong.
Self-evisceration to kowtow to theoretical projections is folly.
profitsbeard on June 4, 2008 at 2:17 AM
THAT is the reason that Democratic Socialists are indoctrinating people with the Gore-Bull Warming Fraud.
Red Pill on June 4, 2008 at 3:36 AM
Red Pill on June 4, 2008 at 3:54 AM
People are familiar with Einstein’s E=MC^2.
They understand that a very small amount of matter can be turned into a very large amount of energy.
It happens in nuclear weapons (whether fission or fusion)
It happens in nuclear power plants (fission)
It happens in the sun (fusion)
Now think about it in reverse…a very large amount of energy being turned into a small amount of matter.
Since Maxx has pointed out that only a very small amount of the energy that comes from the sun is radiated out to space by IR radiation, where does all of that energy go?
Evaporation alone doesn’t explain it, that just transfers the energy around. The energy has to go somewhere. Where does it go? As Maxx says, at some point it becomes mass.
More energy from the sun –> Global Warming –> Oceans release more CO2 –> more plant life grows.
E=MC^2
So what’s the problem? You’d think the “Green” people would be in favor or more plant life growing.
Red Pill on June 4, 2008 at 4:09 AM
I know you’re being facetious, but of course the “Greenies” are no more about protecting the planet, than PETA is about protecting animals or Planned Parenthood is about providing choice. It’s about control. It’s fascism in the truist sense of the word. A tiny, tiny minority of people denying the rest of us access and development of our resources.
With our government as impotent and directionless as it is now, dear God, what kind of coutry will we have a decade from now after an Obama reign of terror?
labrat on June 4, 2008 at 6:41 AM
I emailed Mel Martinez and urged him not to support the bill. Below are a couple of excerpts from his reply.
“I believe that the threat of climate change is real, and I am working with my colleagues in the Senate to regulate and reduce greenhouse emissions. As we consider climate change legislation, we need to ensure that the laws we pass will in fact reduce carbon emissions and lessen the threat of catastrophic climate change.”
“I assure you that I am committed to passing legislation to counter the threat posed by global climate change, and I will keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate considers S. 2191 or similar legislation.”
And the GOP wonders why it’s getting its arse kicked every election…I replyed to Senator Martinez and told him that I looked forward to voting for his opponent in two years. I swear I’ll vote for a Democrat in order to get him out of office.
orlandocajun on June 4, 2008 at 6:45 AM
Stop the Green Pig: Defeat the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman Green Pork Bill Capping American Jobs and Trading America’s Future
by Newt Gingrich
Red Pill on June 4, 2008 at 8:11 AM
Bingo!
All of the things you mention, plus the fascist indoctrination of our public school children with Darwinian Evolution (no debate about Intelligent Design allowed there, yet the debate on HotAir led to the most commented thread in HotAir history) are all part of the game plan of the Communists/Democratic Socialists.
It’s about power and control. Who has it and who doesn’t.
For those who can handle the truth,
it’s God vs. Satan
God works through His people to set others free
Satan works through his people to enslave others
Red Pill on June 4, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Love it. I also like Gore-Bull Warming.
Restating and adding to what I said earlier…
E=MC^2
It’s also true that:
M=E/C^2
The sun converts matter to energy (in a fusion reaction) and radiates that energy out.
The earth receives energy from the sun’s radiation, but the earth only radiates a very small percentage of that back out as Infrared (IR) radiation. Conduction and convection are not possible into the vacuum of space. So, where does all of that energy go?
The energy is converted back into matter.
M=E/C^2
More energy from the sun –> more plant life grows –> plants convert CO2 to O2 –> plants provide both the oxygen and the food that animals need –> more animals can live.
Red Pill on June 4, 2008 at 8:43 AM
Our Intelligent Designer (God) knew what He was doing when He created everything.
People who promote AGW and believe man (not God) is responsible, put nature and man above God.
Not surprising. The Communists/Democratic Socialists serve the god of the earth (Satan) rather than the God of heaven.
Red Pill on June 4, 2008 at 8:56 AM
The document which began our country (The Declaration of Independence) concludes with an appeal to God:
The CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA concludes its Preamble with:
Red Pill on June 4, 2008 at 9:02 AM
Hold on, wasn’t that CO2 recently put there by humans pumping it into the atmosphere? How does removing it become dangerous? There are a lot of amateur research scientists posting on this thread.
No one is addressing the other environmental effects of higher CO2 levels- including reduced oxygen levels in deep sea water and the ‘cabonation’ if you will of oceans, rain forests, and other ecosystems.
bayam on June 4, 2008 at 9:09 AM
You sure do get frightened easily bayam, all of those earth processes have been going on since the beginning with no ill effect, with many times the CO2 levels we have in the air today.
Oh wait… yes I remember it now… the great fish-death of the 1960’s when there was too much CO2 and all the fish and the forest died…..not. (relax bayam - that didn’t really happen) Tell me bayam, do you have a link that supports any of this tripe? Reduced oxygen levels of the sea? Where did you get that? I don’t think even Al Gore has made such a bizarre claim. Did you see that in a comic book someplace? Please tell me where do you get this crap?
Maxx on June 4, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Maxx & Unseen you 2 were busy last night. Maxx I agree with you on CO2 I never said it caused the planet to heat up and yes that is gorical hysteria.
“No, that is Al Gore talking, CO2 does no such thing. How could it, it isn’t even capable of absorbing as much energy as either water vapor or oxygen. And I’m talking on a molecule by molecule comparison, I’m not even including the fact that CO2 is exceedingly rare in the atmosphere compared to either water vapor or oxygen.
Besides, the earth does not cool by means of radiating heat into space. If that is the only way the earth had as a means to cool, the earth would have burned up on day 2.
The earth cools by means of evaporation of water, it does not rely on transferring heat to space as Al Gore claims. It does however transfer a very tiny amount of it’s heat into space via IR radiation, but the amount is totally insignificant and plays no significant part in how the earth cools.
The earth has had more than ten times the amount of CO2 in it’s atmosphere than today with no ill effect. CO2 is a blessing that causes plants to grow faster thus supplying more food for a hungry world.
But the global warmers make CO2 the “bad guy” because you cannot have hardly any type of combustion without creating some CO2. Thus to control/TAX CO2 is to control all business and to gain control over individuals based on a fraud.
CO2 is where the money is for this fraud and that is why they denounce it as the cause of global warming, which of course is not happening.”
I know all of the above that is the point I was trying to make.
xler8bmw on June 4, 2008 at 10:14 AM
No need to vote for a Democrat. Vote for Martinez’s GOP opponent in the primary, he will probably have one, they usually do.
Maxx on June 4, 2008 at 10:33 AM
It’s over, folks. Congress has officially declared war on its citizens.
fossten on June 4, 2008 at 11:04 AM
^^^
citizensconstituents.fossten on June 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM
I like to say “Wake up, Neo…”
It looks like this Neo is already fully awake:
Red Pill on June 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Please, write, email, fax, call Congress on this. Tie up all lines of communication. Grassfire.org has a petition on this as well–get vocal! We must let them know that this is NOT acceptable. I refuse to throw in the towel and declare that, “It’s over”, as fossten said.
Senator Inhofe is one of the last conservatives in Congress; let’s show him our support as well.
Christine on June 4, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Maxx on June 3, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Wasn’t trying to get too technical. I was using heat in the general sense. That being said I did say esacpes back to the ATMOSPHERE and space. The IR reflected back to space does allow some energy to leave the planet. We know energy in the form of light esacpaes into space because EARTH in a hue of colors from space. thus those lightwaves we are seeing is the proof that some energy escapes. If none esacped it would be a black hole and if all esacped it would be a white planet.
Since the size of CO, H2O and methane molocules are such to block this limited amount of IR from getting back into space people think that must be the cause of the warming but i agree that the amount that is trapped is not enough to cause the effect. It is more a matter IMO of the energy being absorped then trapped on refraction. Since we have less ice more energy is absorbed by the earth then was reflected back. thus the sun plays a bigger role in warming than any CO2 could ever hope to do. If you wanted to reduce warming you would increase the amount of Sunlight reflected ( much like Ice sheets do)
I know that the earth is in a warming trend and has been for approx 14,000-11,000 years due to the retreat of the glaciers. The warming has MANY things causing it. The SUn IMO being the biggest one due to decreased reflection from the melting of the glaciers. Others include increased water vapor, release of energy from the earth in the form of volconic activity etc. Without our protective atmosphere and water to trap the reflected IR from going back into space the Earth will be cold like the Moon.
But that is neither here nor there. the fact is that a LOT of the energy trasnported by the Sun to the earth has been saved by the earth to one degree or another. It is saved in plants, in humans and animals, in topsoils, in the chemical bonds of sedimentary rocks, in oil, in coal etc. So while I agree the transfer is small into space it is there and without clouds it is greater then it would be with cloud cover.
unseen on June 4, 2008 at 2:32 PM
We are in agreement that Al Gore and his global warming buddies should be in jail and that’s the important thing.
But we are hung up on a technical point that is difficult to explain. We are both correct…. but we are talking about different things.
You are talking about reflected light off the atmosphere. Which is full spectrum white light that bounced off the atmosphere and was not absorbed.
On the other hand, I am talking about the light that was absorbed by the atmosphere and thus is no longer “light” but is now “heat.” That heat cannot leave the earth, except a very tiny amount in the form of infrared radiation.
Really hard to explain without charts and diagrams. But I really think I did a better job of explaining what I mean in the post linked below.
Maxx on August 12, 2007 at 2:55 PM
If you read it I think it will clear up the confusion.
Maxx on June 4, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Maxx on June 4, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Let’s just quit while we are ahead. I think we are saying the same thing just a little differently. I’m really not ready to get my old college books out. LOL. the biggest thing is it is not CO2 that is causing the warming.
unseen on June 4, 2008 at 4:25 PM
unseen on June 4, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Sounds good to me.
Maxx on June 4, 2008 at 4:26 PM
State lawmakers in New Jersey and other states have succumbed to the “greatest scam” of the past 100 years in the form of Kyoto-type mandatory emissions caps at the expense of their own citizenry and financial well-being, Republican Assemblyman Mike Doherty said in an interview with Cybercast News Service.
Maxx on June 4, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Maxx on June 4, 2008 at 6:21 PM
north Carolina also bit the bullet and now requires 15% of all power generation to be from renewable sources. While I would rather have a bill like this than a cap and trad bill it will still raise my bills. oh yeah NC is a democratic controlled government. If the people keep votting for these idiots I fear for our country.
unseen on June 4, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Fossten, your observation is dead on. Neo, you have the answer. ‘Desperate times call for drastic measures.’
labrat on June 4, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Yes, God is moving the chess pieces. The events of the past seven years should prove that to us.
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Peter seemed pretty insistant on believers understanding this point. Why? It is no coincidence that the events of Sept. 11 happened in the first year of the new millenium. We are approaching the “end of the age” which will be heralded by a terrible tribulation. A new Biblical “Day” is dawning.
From the comments on this thread, we all, athiest and believer alike, see trouble brewing, unlike anything we’ve seen before. We see the train going off the tracks, and we’re helpless. Otherwise intelligent people, in our government, behaving as if they live on a different planet. How much longer? Only God knows (literally). All we can do is try to be prepared spiritually.
Mark 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Please, if you haven’t already, take account of this most important and eternal part of your being.
Dark days ahead folks.
Okay, sermon over, bitter Bible clinger signing off. Good night.
labrat on June 5, 2008 at 12:46 AM
After reading these many posts I am more convinced that ever that man made global warming is a hoax.
THE GREAT LIE IS THAT MANKIND CAN CONTROL OR AFFECT THE WEATHER.
The Lieberman-Warner bill is just another excuse for government to control are lives. The various taxes agentcies in the U.S. already make more on a gallon of gasoline than the componies that supply gasoline to the average american citizen. I am sick and tired of the failed fedaral government’s energy policy over the last 40 years. The fedaral government has choked every chance for a lower cost of energy for years.
If people in the U.S. want a chance of the good life then these people must have access to energy.
When I say failed energy policy I am trying to say that the gornmenment has no clue.
If the U.S. needs energy then why don’t we do something? The politacoes want us to be afraid or dependent.
How do we as consumers and as citizens solve this problem. Well demand a effective energy policy.
Such as.
More nuclear.
A drill anywhere policy for more crude.
Stop the ethonol pragram because the low income folks pay more in food cost than they can save in energy cost. I would be willing to bet that Lieberman or Warner And yes
President Bush have never gone to the local grocery store for years and seen the cost of food rise because of the ethonol program. Sorry i digress.
The Lieeberman-Warner bill is just another attempt to tax the poor and middle class into submission.
Sometimes I have too much to say yet lack the words.
tom lawler
TomLawler on June 5, 2008 at 1:11 PM
France gets 78% of its electricity from nuclear power, Belgium - 54%. What about the U.S.?
Maxx on June 5, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.
Maxx on June 5, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]