Dem Senator: Get rid of cap-and-trade

posted at 12:15 pm on August 14, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The measure of the impact of health-care protests can now be seen on another major item on the Barack Obama agenda.  Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) has called on the Senate to jettison the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill for this year, calling it “too big” after the political turmoil of the eruption of anger on ObamaCare.  Three other Democrats have publicly supported the idea of focusing only on promotion of renewable energy:

The U.S. Senate should abandon efforts to pass legislation curbing greenhouse-gas emissions this year and concentrate on a narrower bill to require use of renewable energy, four Democratic lawmakers say.

“The problem of doing both of them together is that it becomes too big of a lift,” Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said in an interview last week. “I see the cap-and-trade being a real problem.” …

Ben Nelson of Nebraska and North Dakota Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan joined Lincoln in suggesting that the climate measure be put off.

“We should separate the energy bill from the climate bill,” Conrad told reporters this month. ‘It needs to be done as soon as we can get it done,” he said, referring to the energy legislation.

Climate legislation would require 60 votes in the Senate. Most Republicans have said they oppose the cap-and-trade measure, and at least 15 of the Senate’s 60-member Democratic majority have said the House-passed version would hurt the economy and needs to be revamped to win their support.

The cap-and-trade bill actually has more problems politically than ObamaCare.  Waxman-Markey will split the Democratic caucus in the Senate along both ideological and regional lines.  Senators like Lincoln and Nelson object because they represent red states that dislike government interference in private industries, especially when the intervention has the explicit goal of making everything a lot more expensive, thanks to penalties on energy production.  But even normally center-left and liberal Senators will resist the idea of killing the coal industry, especially in places like Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and other Rust Belt states.

Instead, the fifteen Democrats want to skip the entire greenhouse-gas debate and focus instead strictly on encouraging development of green energy production.  That can get done with a lot less expense while eliminating a government takeover of the energy sector.  If the goal of the climate-control crowd was really a boost for green energy as a means to eliminate coal as a factor through natural obsolescence, this approach should not offend them.

However, that’s never really been the goal.  The goal has been to have government seize control of the means of production in industry, and energy is the core industry to control in that regard.  That’s why this move among these Democratic Senators will be as welcome as a tax audit to Waxman-Markey supporters.  Unfortunately for them, the radical nature of ObamaCare has exposed the radical approach of this administration and Congressional leadership, which means that they’re unlikely to win any of the Democrats back from that position — and now can’t count on any Republican support at all.

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 3

prove to me that our taxes are going to have any measureable effect on the level of a naturally occurring substance.

What happens when we declare war on water?

What happens when we declare war on sunlight?

What happens when we declare war on gravity?

What happens when we declare war on sunspots, moonbeams and gnat farts?

….please tell me (wiping away copious tears)… what will happen once those horrible things happen…

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:24 PM

How many dollars does it take to change the CO2 level in the atmosphere by 1ppm?

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:24 PM

The UN is not on your side.

The UN is one of the most idiotic and dangerous organizations to have ever existed, as anyone with even a passing understanding of evolutionary theory knows that empowered, peerless, competitionless entities are guaranteed to grow in grotesque and destructive ways. You idiots can’t even understand that simple fact.

Please provide evidence that increased CO2 isn’t a culprit.

hottieinthehouse on August 14, 2009 at 1:18 PM

LOL. Look at the Vostok Ice Core data, Einstein.

Do you even know what CO2 is?

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Friday June 26, 2009. We will remember you Al Green,(D) Tx-9 for blindly supporting Nancy Pelosi while telling us you were weighing constituent input. Liar.

DanMan on August 14, 2009 at 1:25 PM

What is the value of 1ppm of CO2 reduction? What is the relative harm of 1ppm of CO2 increase?

Would the proposed changes result in any measurable effect that wouldn’t be negated by the consumption of other countries like China?

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Why do you connutjobs not want to find a cure for climate change?

hottieinthehouse on August 14, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Because carbon dioxide is only a tiny part of the natural forces (including water vapor, sunspots, volcanoes, and ocean currents) affecting climate change (warming AND cooling), about which we can do nothing. Carbon dioxide also has the beneficial effect of increasing plant growth rates and crop yields, which is why nursery owners deliberately release CO2 into greenhouses to speed flower growth.

I’ve heard those favoring cap-and-trade say that cutting back on CO2 emissions is like taking out an insurance policy for the Earth. Given the immense cost of cap-and-trade, it would be equivalent to taking out a $100,000 life insurance policy and paying $10 million per month in premiums. It’s just not worth the cost.

If the climate does change for some reason (natural or man-made), the money would be much better spent adapting to the new climate. For example, sea levels are currently rising at about 2 millimeters per year. At this rate, it would take 152 years for them to rise one foot. With the tens of trillions of dollars wasted on CO2, we could build lots and lots of sea-walls.

Steve Z on August 14, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Since when do greenie granola’s actually rely on “data” to either refute or support their arguments?

It appears that when bowing to the “Earth” *genuflecting* that this is the only outward display of “faith” that such secularists display on any given day? Except when they are demonstrating faith to Uhhbama, who has failed them miserably despite the truckloads of faith they bestowed upon his worthless rear end last fall. See the pattern, jack

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:28 PM

STOP CO2 EMISSIONS!

Tell the politicians to stop talking, and start listening!

dominigan on August 14, 2009 at 1:28 PM

***
The President Obama (PBUH) administration and our Congress look more like Mel Brooks BLAZING SADDLES MOVIE all the time. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) must feel her “saddle” heating up! The people of Arkansas (and other “flyover space” states are smarter than the Beltway politicians think.
***
As far as windmill power, ethanol, solar panels, and other unproven / expensive / unreliable “greenie” energy sources–this is money “down the toilet”. Build nuclear power plants (like France did) and DRILL HERE / DRILL NOW.
***
Vote out any Senator or Representative who signes on to any other agenda.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on August 14, 2009 at 1:30 PM

At this rate, it would take 152 years for them to rise one foot. With the tens of trillions of dollars wasted on CO2, we could build lots and lots of sea-walls.

Steve Z on August 14, 2009 at 1:28 PM

remember, this is the same crowd that is looking to spend a jillion dollars to prevent one case of diabetes and one heart attack that might have happened anyway and cost $50,000 to treat. However, medicare would only reimburse $1,200 for it and the doctor would spend $3,000 just to try and get that reimbursement.

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) has called on the Senate to jettison the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill for this year,

Pray this is true that Cap-N-Tax dies a wicked, torturous death in the Senate. I cannot afford $5 gasoline and my power bill is maxed out already.

Sanity prevail please.

FireBlogger on August 14, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Steve Z on August 14, 2009 at 1:28 PM

I laugh whenever I see those faux science reports on Global Warming. Without exception, they ALWAYS omit water vapor from their facts… since it accounts for 95% of any greenhouse effects… and can’t be “controlled”.

Remember, it’s all about control, not science.

If it was about science, they’d be talking about solar cycles and sunspot activity instead.

dominigan on August 14, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Next up: Congress repeals the Laws of Thermodynamics!

ZenDraken on August 14, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Please provide evidence that increased CO2 isn’t a culprit.

hottieinthehouse on August 14, 2009 at 1:18 PM

I hope you have saved data, too, because the US and UK are busy hiding and locking their raw climate data. It doesn’t help the global warming story, so they are “massaging” it and keeping the original under lock and key. Profiles in scientific courage.

You folks are too funny. It’s just a shame that some morons let you out of your sandbox, where you could be as crazy as you are without hurting anyone. Now, you lunatics are like 5 year olds with nuclear weapons.

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Pray this is true that Cap-N-Tax dies a wicked, torturous death in the Senate. I cannot afford $5 gasoline and my power bill is maxed out already.

Sanity prevail please.

FireBlogger on August 14, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Cap and tax needs to die a tortured death in the Senate. Then, it needs to be followed back to the wizard-of-smart idea factories from where it was spawned, those guys need to be beaten, deprogrammed, and their hard drives erased and keyboards smashed. Then we may consider the battle nearly over.

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Keep hammering folks.

TXMomof3 on August 14, 2009 at 12:18 PM

I sent an email to all my co-workers and employees about cap-and-trade and got them to call our reps. Posted the email online in case you want to cut, paste and modify for your organization. We can’t expect them to get good info from the MSM so we have to bypass it. Be the media.

http://bit.ly/6DcC3

SBABG on August 14, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Next up: Congress repeals the Laws of Thermodynamics!

ZenDraken on August 14, 2009 at 1:32 PM

No, they’ll figure out a way to tax actions AND reactions…

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Please provide evidence that increased CO2 isn’t a culprit.

hottieinthehouse on August 14, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Your question is improperly formed. “Does an increase in atmospheric C02 cause an increase in atmospheric temperature?” is the proper question. Your question assumes it does, and that is not the case.

Exhibit A: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

The graphs on this page show the rise and fall of atm temperature and C02 concentrations just over the last 400,000 years (Which is about 396,000 years before homosapiens fashioned the first tool).

As you can see, both move up and down apparently in synch. But they are not in synch. The rise in temperature precedes the rise in C02 by 800-1200 years, meaning the temp goes up first, then CO2 follows.

There is no positive or negative feedback loop. This is proven by the fact that as temperature falls, CO2 also begins to fall, but at a much slower pace than the temp. If CO2 was a driver of atm temperature rise, the temp would not fall until the CO2 dropped.

These facts were ignored by the Goracle in his mockumentary.

Next?

BobMbx on August 14, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Coming soon to a town hall near you ……

“I never said I was a proponent of Cap-and-Trade.”

- Backtrack Hussein Obama

fogw on August 14, 2009 at 12:53 PM

LET ME BE PERFECTLY CLEAR – Your electricity bills will not go up one cent!

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

izoneguy on August 14, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Forget Global Warming -

It was then called “Climate Change”

Now they call it “Climate Justice”

It will devastate poor people – is that justice?

izoneguy on August 14, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Please provide evidence that increased CO2 isn’t a culprit.

hottieinthehouse on August 14, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Please provide evidence that it is. Your side is the one that wants to cripple us economically, so the burden is on ou.

While you are at it, please provide evidence that the planet is warming due to anything other than solar activity. All evidence I have seen says otherwise.

Vashta.Nerada on August 14, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Hmmmmm! It seems as if hottiehasleftthehouse. Must have been surprised of intelligent beings on a conservative site!

Vince on August 14, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Keep hammering folks.

TXMomof3 on August 14, 2009 at 12:18 PM

I put together an email for my employees and co-workers on cap-and-trade and how it affect them; asked them to contact their reps. I put it online for anyone else who wants to cut, paste, modify and send. We have to keep up the heat and go direct since the MSM is burying truth about this legislation.

http://bit.ly/6DcC3

*sorry if this is a repost, i got timed out on my last one … so don’t know if it got through but haven’t seen it.

SBABG on August 14, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Just wait until Al Gore and Co. come up with a way to tax the Sun.

Yakko77 on August 14, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Cap and tax needs to die a tortured death in the Senate. Then, it needs to be followed back to the wizard-of-smart idea factories from where it was spawned, those guys need to be beaten, deprogrammed, and their hard drives erased and keyboards smashed. Then we may consider the battle nearly over.

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:34 PM

You smash their heads into the screens and beat them about the back with their keyboards until they are shattered….

izoneguy on August 14, 2009 at 1:41 PM

izone

I knew all his hyperbole was going to hem him in eventually. One would think all this “not one dime” and “not one cent” talk would finally catch up with him.

He’s so damn arrogant that if Cap and Trade goes down in flames, he’ll say “See, I told you I wouldn’t raise them… and we didn’t!”

Someone ought to do a little counting and see how many dimes more the middle class are going to pay in taxes and such over and above what they paid in December 2008. Me thinks this’ll be a lot of dimes.

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM

One of the goals of Cap and Trade was to provide additional tax revenue for Obama’s health care plan. When Cap and Trade stalled it knocked the legs out of the funding mechanism for health care. Bambi was forced to argue that his health plan would save money because he didn’t have any other way of arguing that it could be paid for. However that argument blew up when the CBO showed it was all a lot of nonsense.

And that kiddies led to the present health care debacle. Bambi can’t fund his program unless he has Cap and Trade, but he can’t get Cap and Trade now that he’s over his head in the health care debate. Face with that, he’s done the only thing he’s apparently capable of doing:

He’s throwing a temper tantrum.

PackerBronco on August 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Just wait until Al Gore and Co. come up with a way to tax the Sun.

Yakko77 on August 14, 2009 at 1:41 PM

tax the Sun = Cap and Trade

BobMbx on August 14, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Hmmmmm! It seems as if hottiehasleftthehouse. Must have been surprised of intelligent beings on a conservative site!

Vince on August 14, 2009 at 1:40 PM

We were having a battle of the wits with an unarmed woman. She’s probably off sucking her thumb and crying about sexist chauvinists.

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Next up: Congress repeals the Laws of Thermodynamics!

ZenDraken on August 14, 2009 at 1:32 PM

A law written by a racist white man who was probably also homophobic.

PackerBronco on August 14, 2009 at 1:44 PM

tax the Sun = Cap and Trade

BobMbx on August 14, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Yeah,I guess they are one and the same when you get down to it.

Yakko77 on August 14, 2009 at 1:45 PM

A law written by a racist white man who was probably also homophobic.

PackerBronco on August 14, 2009 at 1:44 PM

good thing we’ve got a wise latina to review that now. One has to consider that she’ll come to a better decision than that guy…

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:45 PM

One would think all this “not one dime” and “not one cent” talk would finally catch up with him.

His statement seems to indicate that taxes won’t go up at all. But this is double-speak (which is the preferred language on Capital Hill).

What he meant, if I can usurp Gibbs in his ability to channel what people meant to say, was that taxes were going to go up more than “one dime” or “one cent”. In fact, he meant they were going to go up by the thousands of dimes and millions of pennies.

See, I’ve lived around DC for far too long. I’ve learned to speak the language.

BobMbx on August 14, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Hmmmmm! It seems as if hottiehasleftthehouse. Must have been surprised of intelligent beings on a conservative site!

Vince on August 14, 2009 at 1:40 PM

I’m sure that the descriptor of “hottie” is also inaccurate.

BobMbx on August 14, 2009 at 1:49 PM

highhopes on August 14, 2009 at 1:18 PM

yes, Mary has been lucky Several Times Over, and knows how to take advantage of advantages. Without Katrina and ACORN, she probably would not have been re-elected.

As with Blanche in Arkansas and that newly-elected Dem woman in N.C., the Dems have figured out that having a candidate for Senate who is a non-threatening female who gets Very Vague on social issues can get them Senate seats which are not otherwise available.

but when Push comes to Shove, they’ll vote with Harry Reid nearly all of the time.

Janos Hunyadi on August 14, 2009 at 1:50 PM

In fact, he meant they were going to go up by the thousands of dimes and millions of pennies.

See, I’ve lived around DC for far too long. I’ve learned to speak the language.

BobMbx on August 14, 2009 at 1:47 PM

I guess we have to learn to read in the parentheses of what obama is saying, er, the TOTUS.

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Don’t count it out yet.

Dear Leader was counting on the ‘loot’ garnered from Crap&Tax to fund his ‘dream’ America.

Sen. Lincoln may yet be ‘persuaded’ to see the light.

CPT. Charles on August 14, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Wasn’t the WH counting on some cap and tax $$ to help pay for this healthcare boondoggle? He might have to jigger or jimmy his numbers like ol’ skippy gates was doin’ to the lock.

anyone up for beer?

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Why worry about the climate. The head of the UN said in 4 months we’re dead meat anyhow.

Jeff from WI on August 14, 2009 at 1:58 PM

sounds like a “Prince” song… we should be partyin’ likes it’s 2009…

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:58 PM

CO2 is a piss-poor greenhouse gas.

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Knee-capped and Flayed. That’s how to describe the economy after Goracle gets finished selling us his Karboon Kredits.

Here’s a thought for all you carp who have swallowed the AGW bunk hook, line, and sinker…

It is mass media in the West that drives demand for goods and services, that results our high living standards, and therefore, use of energy.

The way to turn down demand, is to cap and trade – mass media advertising-. That’s right, put a bit fat tax on mass media advertising, which will raise the price of advertising sufficiently high that we will be subject to far less of it, and therefore buy less wasteful stuff. On a global basis, it will be far more socially just, you see.

Kyoto applied to the meta level. If it’s good for us, it’s great for mass media. Same principle, yes? but applied higher up the economic food chain. Why cap and trade just energy? Go higher!

shaken on August 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM

By the way ‘hottie’, if your still willing to come back and play…

Question: What is the ‘ideal’ climate we should be experiencing?

And, when did it, in Earth’s past, exist?

Answer, please.

CPT. Charles on August 14, 2009 at 2:06 PM

So some DEM congressWOMAN doesn’t like all of Cap & Tax.Big deal, don’t trust ANY DEM to think anything through.Remember you give up your soul to be a Democrat.

Jeff from WI on August 14, 2009 at 2:06 PM

The UN is not on your side. Please provide evidence that increased CO2 isn’t a culprit.

hottieinthehouse on August 14, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Evidentiary point 1 – plant life, especially kudzu

Evidentiary point 2 – This chart

Evidentiary point 3 – This web page comparing H20 to CO2 levels

If you can do the math and know what kudzu is, you have all you need to know, Useless Nations or not.

ExpressoBold on August 14, 2009 at 2:06 PM

The UN says we’re all dead in 4 months so what’s the point?

Sierraniner on August 14, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Good for her. Cap & Trade would hurt more people than warming ever would.

I encourage everyone to read Ian Plimer’s excellent treatise debunking global warming. Over 2300 footnotes, and it looks at the history of climate, the scientific theories on anthropogenic global warming, and the clear evidence that those theories are incorrect. It’s titled Heaven and Earth.

hawksruleva on August 14, 2009 at 2:10 PM

You can cancel out all the warming of the earth over the last 30 years by changing the albedo of the major cities (over 1 million people).

If you do not know what Albedo is and are a Climate Changer then you are an EPIC FAIL.

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 2:12 PM

For all the good it will do to reverse the global warming/climate change, as these cultist wish us to believe we can do such, they could probably be most effective by totally restoring Chichen Itza…and bringing back human sacrifices to the sun god.

AlGore should show his complete dedication to the cause by being the first one at the top of the pyramid bearing his chest, willingly lying back on the stone, so that he might nobly serve the sun god.

Face it, most climate change/global warming/man-made global warming nutballs are all cultists. And I really do not like my tax dollars going to cults.

coldwarrior on August 14, 2009 at 2:13 PM

The UN is not on your side. Please provide evidence that increased CO2 isn’t a culprit.

hottieinthehouse on August 14, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Read this

This is the report which was suppressed by the EPA. In it, a correlation is found between solar activity and ocean activity to climate change. CO2 is not the culprit.

BacaDog on August 14, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Question for the Burning-Earthers:

How many people on the planet died in 2008 because of the Goracle’s fantasy science pronouncments involving corn-based ethanol? Hint: They starved to death or died in food riots

What happened in 2008 that hadn’t happened in the US since the year ~1780?

BobMbx on August 14, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Please provide evidence that increased CO2 isn’t a culprit.

hottieinthehouse on August 14, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Culprit of what? Of the warming that’s no longer occurring? Of the severe storms we’re not experiencing?

It’s clear thoughout the historical record that warming would be extremely BENEFICIAL to mankind, if it did happen.

There will continue to be warm and cold periods of weather. Nature, not man, will continue to be the culprit. Man is totally incapable of controlling something as massive as Earth’s ecosystem. Even a nuclear holocaust would only temporarily change weather patterns.

hawksruleva on August 14, 2009 at 2:17 PM

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:43 PM

How do you know it’s a woman and not something like Perez Hilton?

ExpressoBold on August 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM

By the way ‘hottie’, if your still willing to come back and play…

Question: What is the ‘ideal’ climate we should be experiencing?

CPT. Charles on August 14, 2009 at 2:06 PM

I’ll handle this one for the hottie:

82 and sunny, 24 hours a day, every. Change is evil!! And if anyone touches the thermostat, I’ll kill them.

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 2:19 PM

How many people on the planet died in 2008 because of the Goracle’s fantasy science pronouncments involving corn-based ethanol? Hint: They starved to death or died in food riots

Energy sources derived from food sources is going to be a disaster. Starvation is more probable with biofuels derived from foodstock than starvation in climate change (all that land in Siberia and Canada not producing crops can be made to produce crops with a warmer earth).

You want seperate sources. You want to keep your food seperate from your energy.

Want a good replacement for Fossil Crude? Go with Biocrude derived from algae. It is carbon neutral, can use any water source (Sewer water, salt water, fresh water) and requires no retooling of cars or refineries to put it on the market.

Just need higher crude prices.

Instead, people will starve because of Ethanol.

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM

How do you know it’s a woman and not something like Perez Hilton?

ExpressoBold on August 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM

I guess I took it from the name….

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Anyone remember that old painting of Washington crossing the Delaware?

Hasn’t been ice like that on the Delaware River since the 1820′s.

Little Ice Age. Man made?

Now, how did we, with such a primitive economy at the time, across America, cause such a terrible change in temperatures across North America and Europe at that time?

By the way, there are anecdotal writings around the same time of people walking from France and the Netherlands to England…across a partially frozen Channel.

Man-made climate change?

If so, how’d they do it?

coldwarrior on August 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM

You can cancel out all the warming of the earth over the last 30 years by changing the albedo of the major cities (over 1 million people).

If you do not know what Albedo is and are a Climate Changer then you are an EPIC FAIL.

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 2:12 PM

1)the earth stopped warming already.
2)why would we want to reverse any warming that’s occurred?
3)the reflectivity of cities is not a large enough factor to change the global climate. Further, increasing reflectivity would actually reflect the heat back into the atmosphere. Doesn’t that mean more Hot Air, not less? Your car is at ground level. Clouds, which actually do reflect heat back into space, are quite a bit higher in the atmosphere.

hawksruleva on August 14, 2009 at 2:27 PM

blatantblue on August 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I’m sure Hillary feels that way ;)

Wolftech on August 14, 2009 at 2:27 PM

82 and sunny, 24 hours a day, every. Change is evil!! And if anyone touches the thermostat, I’ll kill them.

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 2:19 PM

Sorry, I’m voting for 60-65, partially cloudy.

CPT. Charles on August 14, 2009 at 2:28 PM

There is a special election coming up in a couple of weeks to start the process of replacing representative Ellen Tauscher from California 10. It can be done.

Ellen may have voted for Cap & Trade, but at least as acting speaker, she allowed Boehner to spend as much time as he wanted pointing out every piece of crap section in the bill including the 3:00 am amendment. This action drew some whiny protest from that Malibu weasel Henry Waxman. In doing so, she set the senate up to kill the future bill and opened her own house seat up to serious competition in an open election. Thanks Ellen. Good riddance.

Thunderdome on August 14, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Too big? No, too dumb.

el gordo on August 14, 2009 at 2:32 PM

By the way, there are anecdotal writings around the same time of people walking from France and the Netherlands to England…across a partially frozen Channel.

Man-made climate change?

If so, how’d they do it?

coldwarrior on August 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM

All past occurances of climate change were caused by nature. All future climate changes, whatever they might be, are caused by man. And all of those future changes, no matter what they are, will be catastrophic.

Can I get my enviro-nutball card now?

hawksruleva on August 14, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Sorry, I’m voting for 60-65, partially cloudy.

CPT. Charles on August 14, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Them’s fighting words! When we finally get to stop the Earth’s temperature from changing, and bring total stagnation to our ecosystem (the way it always was before those nasty, evil homo sapiens showed up) it’s not going to be to satisfy you cold-mongers. I’m warning you, Charles. Step away from the thermostat or this is going to get ugly.

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 2:36 PM

)the reflectivity of cities is not a large enough factor to change the global climate. Further, increasing reflectivity would actually reflect the heat back into the atmosphere. Doesn’t that mean more Hot Air, not less? Your car is at ground level. Clouds, which actually do reflect heat back into space, are quite a bit higher in the atmosphere.

hawksruleva on August 14, 2009 at 2:27 PM

No, that energy will reflect back into space.

Some energy will be absorbed by the atmosphere when it is reflected but a lot less then what is abosrbed by asphalt, concrete, cement and the like. Roads and the like are good black body radiators.

If you change the albedo, more of the sunlight will reflect off of these surfaces instead of being absorbed. Might have to wear darker sunglasses though.

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Can I get my enviro-nutball card now?

hawksruleva on August 14, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Not until you blame Man for causing the desertification of the Sahara, which was fairly green until that evil species, homo sapien, started colonizing it.

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 2:38 PM

The Australians just did the right thing and dumped their cap and trade:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/12/australia-rejects-climate-cap-and-trade-bill/

Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! oy! oy! oy!

Voodoo on August 14, 2009 at 2:39 PM

Not until you blame Man for causing the desertification of the Sahara, which was fairly green until that evil species, homo sapien, started colonizing it.

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 2:38 PM

And we are obviously at fault for the flooding of the Black Sea.

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM

And we are obviously at fault for the flooding of the Black Sea.

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM

If it weren’t for Man, this Earth would be perfect.

/enviro-wacko

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 2:42 PM

The UN is not on your side. Please provide evidence that increased CO2 isn’t a culprit.

hottieinthehouse on August 14, 2009 at 1:18 PM

That’s one of the most asinine, witless statements I’ve ever read. Since when do we require people to provide proof for negative statements? Do we say to the murder suspect, “Prove you did not murder the victim.”? Is this the kind of mentality we are dealing with on the left? If so we can not expect to win over these idiots with reason.

I am reminded of this excellent clip from The Simpsons:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2zXSaDFi7o

So prophetic!

Goldenavatar on August 14, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 2:38 PM

All well and good.

But the big question should be who broke Pangea???

That’s what screwed up those ocean currents, and all that.

I do have one suspect…

coldwarrior on August 14, 2009 at 2:47 PM

coldwarrior on August 14, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Nice.

BobMbx on August 14, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Not until you blame Man for causing the desertification of the Sahara, which was fairly green until that evil species, homo sapien, started colonizing it.

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 2:38 PM

But wasn’t that done by Muslims? That means it’s exempt, right?

hawksruleva on August 14, 2009 at 2:50 PM

I do have one suspect…

coldwarrior on August 14, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Aha! A warm-blooded mammal, and the ancestor of homo sapien, yet. The evidence of Man’s long attempted destruction of the innocent Earth just keeps piling up.

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Why do you connutjobs not want to find a cure for climate change?

hottieinthehouse on August 14, 2009 at 1:10 PM

ITS NOT A DISEASE, its a cycle. Look at dino time, hot humid lots of ferns, a hot house. Then somehow we had an ice age. wooly mammoths snow ect. Then somehow it went away. No suvs, no coal plants but the climate changed. This happened over many years and is still happening. You cant change it. Im all for cleaner air but im not buying the global warming oops i mean climate change hype.

Greed on August 14, 2009 at 2:53 PM

We’re starting to win…

LtE126 on August 14, 2009 at 2:55 PM

But wasn’t that done by Muslims? That means it’s exempt, right?

hawksruleva on August 14, 2009 at 2:50 PM

The killing of the Sahara was committed by pagans who had not yet been blessed with the great truths that islam brought. Clearly, muslims have never had anything but the welfare of the fair Earth in mind as they have tried to depopulate every area they have encountered. Muslims are the original greens. How do I know this? Because, when Saddam Hussein intentionally spilled 40,000,000 barrels of oil into the gulf and lit just about every oil well in Kuwait on fire, not a single greenie had a bad word for him, because the greens knew that this was just part of the muslim attempt to save the Earth by ridding it of all humans, as allah long ago commanded.

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 2:57 PM

yes, climate change is the new religion. And there is supposed to be a separation between church and state. The founders didn’t mean prayer in schools, they meant this crap.

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:17 PM

You hit this one right out of the ballpark: it’s going, going, going, gone! Who’s up for mounting a court challenge based on the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause?

ya2daup on August 14, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Not until you blame Man for causing the desertification of the Sahara, which was fairly green until that evil species, homo sapien, started colonizing it.

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 2:38 PM

I think you’ll find the Sahara Desert is the result of an early-technology fertilizer program gone bad. They simply applied too much and made a dead spot. A big one.

BobMbx on August 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM

It’s rare that just a screen-name can cause me to totally disregard someone’s every utterance.

But hottieinthehouse does the trick.

Why on earth would anyone listen to someone who chose that that name?

guntotinglibertarian on August 14, 2009 at 3:03 PM

ITS NOT A DISEASE, its a cycle. Look at dino time, hot humid lots of ferns, a hot house. Then somehow we had an ice age. wooly mammoths snow ect. Then somehow it went away. No suvs, no coal plants but the climate changed. This happened over many years and is still happening. You cant change it. Im all for cleaner air but im not buying the global warming oops i mean climate change hype.

Greed on August 14, 2009 at 2:53 PM

You are missing about 65 million years there.

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 3:07 PM

As well as geologic events in India, a meteor impact and an already changing climate.

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Step away from the thermostat or this is going to get ugly.

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 2:36 PM

We’ll agree to disagree, BTW, here’s my ‘peace’ offering:

http://thepeoplescube.com/red/richedit/cliparts/globalwarming/GlobalWarming_Vodka_Bottle.jpg

CPT. Charles on August 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM

I think you’ll find the Sahara Desert is the result of an early-technology fertilizer program gone bad. They simply applied too much and made a dead spot. A big one.

BobMbx on August 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Yes. I think there was a piece in Lancet about this, in the issue with the estimate of 254,000,000,000 Iraqi casualties. Great journal, that Lancet.

But, whatever the actual mechanism, the moral is clear: Civilization kills! As that great scientist and celebrated anthropologist, Cheryl Crow noted, everything was under control until the invention of paper … toilet paper. Then it was all over for poor Mother Earth. One sheet! One sheet!

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Someone ought to do a little counting and see how many dimes more the middle class are going to pay in taxes and such over and above what they paid in December 2008. Me thinks this’ll be a lot $H!TL0AD of dimes.

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM

FIFY

ya2daup on August 14, 2009 at 3:12 PM

CPT. Charles on August 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Accepted.

(… sneaking behind his back to put the thermostat back to the right temperature)

progressoverpeace on August 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Just wait until Al Gore and Co. come up with a way to tax mine hydrogen from the Sun.

Yakko77 on August 14, 2009 at 1:41 PM

They’ll do it when the sun’s down at night

ya2daup on August 14, 2009 at 3:17 PM

BTW—Here’s the ‘source’

http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=3848

One of my fav’s… [so far]

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/richedit/upload/2kdddec162b5.gif

CPT. Charles on August 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM

You are missing about 65 million years there.

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 3:07 PM

And the climate didnt change at all during that time? your point?

Greed on August 14, 2009 at 3:21 PM

If Obama and Congress can’t get it done, Cap ‘n Trade doesn’t go away. The EPA is waiting in the wings to enact the law anyway under the Clean Air Act. They have already started to exert control by ratcheting up restrictions on HAPS and mercury emissions. They will make CO2 a HAP (hazardous air pollutant) and go after industry that way…mark my words.

Wyznowski on August 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM

I am still waiting to ban or regulate Dihydrogen Monoxide, it is a key component of climate change, found in soft drinks, a key component of erosion, when submereged in it the human body begins to break down, destroys the respiratory system, when ingested in suffient amounts can kill you, and causes rust.

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM

The UN is not on your side. Please provide evidence that increased CO2 isn’t a culprit.

hottieinthehouse on August 14, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Sorry. You need to go back to science class Hottie. The null hypothesis is that we are not responsible for climate change. If you want to propose an alternative hypothesis, i.e., that human generated CO2 is responsible for climate change, then YOU are the one who has to supply proof. And, sadly for your side, you don’t get to reject the null hypothesis until you’ve accumulated enough significant evidence to convince the scientific community that you’ve got it right. And, now that the truth of this matter is finally coming out, we’re finding that scientific community remains unconvinced.

Dee2008 on August 14, 2009 at 3:27 PM

I am still waiting to ban or regulate Dihydrogen Monoxide, it is a key component of climate change, found in soft drinks, a key component of erosion, when submereged in it the human body begins to break down, destroys the respiratory system, when ingested in suffient amounts can kill you, and causes rust.

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Don’t forget, it also causes excessive urination.

Goldenavatar on August 14, 2009 at 3:29 PM

Want a good replacement for Fossil Crude? Go with Biocrude derived from algae.

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 2:21 PM

As the founder of not only People for the Ethical Treatment of Anaerobes but also People for the Ethical Treatment of Aerobes, I’m giving you fair warning: LEAVE THE LITTLE BUGGIES ALONE!!!!

ya2daup on August 14, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Please Harry Reid, put the entire cap-n-trade bill up for a vote. The sooner the better.

Once it’s defeated, we can start focusing on thinning the Democrat herd in 2010.

SalHansen on August 14, 2009 at 3:30 PM

I am still waiting to ban or regulate Dihydrogen Monoxide, it is a key component of climate change, found in soft drinks, a key component of erosion, when submereged in it the human body begins to break down, destroys the respiratory system, when ingested in suffient amounts can kill you, and causes rust.

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 3:22 PM

I’ve also heard that human bodies break down when submerged in B.S.

Dee2008 on August 14, 2009 at 3:30 PM

As the founder of not only People for the Ethical Treatment of Anaerobes but also People for the Ethical Treatment of Aerobes, I’m giving you fair warning: LEAVE THE LITTLE BUGGIES ALONE!!!!

ya2daup on August 14, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Fine then, we’ll have to go with Option number 2…

Soylent Oil.

Holger on August 14, 2009 at 3:31 PM

now, i’m just an idiot photographer, so please accept my apologies for not being completely up to speed on science, or providing any links.

a while back, NOVA on pbs had an interesting show on global warming. whether it is man-made or not, is anyone’s guess, but it seems that more and more evidence is pointing that it is not man-made. one of the surprising (to me) points was that the level of particulates in the earth’s atmosphere, actually acts as a light shield blocking a certain percentage of the sun’s light from reaching the earth’s surface. visible light doesn’t give off heat. when sunlight strikes an object, it’s wavelength changes, and heat is produced as a by-product.
now, a scientist had a theory. he postulated that particulates in the air actually prevents the earth from warming up. he used recorded temperatures going back in time to the present, and compared them to the rise of industry. the only problem he had, was that he couldn’t test his hypothesis.

until september 11th, 2001, that is. on that day, the entire aviation grid in the united states was shut down and airplanes grounded. a chance in a lifetime. the recorded temperatures around CONUS were on average (i’m stretching to remember, but i think it was…) 1 degree Celsius warmer than average going back years. the temperature spike was due to no exhaust from all of the engines and water vapor in the air (something to do with wings, lift, and how pressure is less on one side of the wing, thus generating water vapor) NOT blocking the sun’s light. therefore, an increase in direct sunlight reaching the earth’s surface caused more heat to be produced.

if we take this a step-further, and if you are of the like mind that man isn’t causing global warming, decreasing “dirty” power sources such as fossil fuel burning, we will radically decrease the particulate amount in the earth’s atmosphere. if we do that, and this scientist really is right, than we will drastically increase the amount of sunlight striking the earth, and thus, drastically increasing the increase in the earth’s temperature. that will be man-made global warming. that will also be run-away global warming. the more we seek to reduce our burning of fossil fuels, the more we potentially will be raising our average temperatures.

any scientists our people smarter than an idiot photographer care to comment on this? i would certainly like to know more.

photoboy74 on August 14, 2009 at 3:45 PM

What a hideous woman both outside and inside. She’ll burn in hell.

Jeff from WI on August 14, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3