Mixed Reaction Greets Kerry-Lieberman Carbon Rationing Discussion Draft

|

Climate shakedown

As promised, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (CFl-Conn.) have issued a draft discussion version of their American Power Act which aims to ration carbon dioxide emissions to limit man-made global warming and transform the U.S. energy economy. The modified cap-and-trade bill is 987 pages in length. Reactions are mixed.

The Center for American Progress (the left-leaning non-partisan D.C.-based think tank that thinks no thoughts other than those approved by the Obama administration) praises it:

"The Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act jump-starts such efforts to adopt comprehensive clean energy and climate polices that would cut oil use, increase security, reduce pollution, and create jobs. For all working families across the United States—from fishermen in the gulf to our farmers in the heartland—this bill provides real benefits for real Americans.

"The American Power Act reflects Sens. Kerry and Lieberman's tremendous leadership and perseverance. This bill would truly reduce oil use, cut carbon pollution, invest in efficiency and clean energy technologies that create jobs, and protect consumers' wallets. It is now incumbent upon President Obama and Senate leaders to bring together senators to craft and pass a comprehensive clean energy program that achieves its goals."

The United Steelworkers Union is provisionally happy with the protectionist aspects of the bill:

"Energy-intensive, trade-exposed manufactured products will be more heavily impacted by a carbon price than others—and while this can be mitigated long-term by improvements in efficiency and cleaner processes—this will take time and requires the right combination of adopted policies.  In the meantime, these industries could potentially face decimation and massive job loss at the hands of foreign competitors that do not face similar carbon costs, unless both a short-term and long-term program is put in place to ensure the cost disadvantage faced by US manufacturers is eliminated….

"The USW is pleased that U.S. Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have included a variety of key provisions in their discussion draft of the American Power Act, including the crucial anti-leakage provisions. 

On the other hand, the Center for Biological Diversity (a good stand-in for the conservationist wing of the environmentalist movement) decries the bill as a "disaster for climate" and denounces it as a corporate giveaway:

The climate proposal put forth today by Senators Kerry and Lieberman represents a disaster for our climate and planet. This proposal moves us one baby step forward and at least three giant steps back in any rational effort to address the climate crisis.

Most industry groups are holding their fire until they can analyze the provisions. My uncharitable thought is that most industries are trying figure out how many goodies are in the bill for them before deciding on whether or not to support it.

The GOP is still against it. Sen. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who has been the Republican point man on energy and climate lately, issued this statement:

"Whether you want to call it spin or rebranding, the American Power Act introduced today by Sens. Kerry and Lieberman is barely better than last year's House-passed cap-and-tax legislation, despite their claims that this is a new approach to the climate bill.

"Both Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Lieberman have the same proposed cap on U.S. carbon emissions. Both measures include provisions that will raise the cost of carbon emissions on industry, and thus, the cost of energy. This amounts to a hidden tax on energy that every consumer will pay.

"Despite what the authors say, there's both a cap and a tax in this bill, and it will hurt the U.S. economy. Americans need Congress to set an energy policy that focuses on developing new technology, improving energy efficiency and maximizing domestic energy production, not one that sets unrealistic goals and levies unaffordable taxes."

Not having had time yet to analyze 987 pages of proposed legislation, it is still the case that what government is likely to do about global warming will be worse than global warming.

Update: Friends of the Earth hates Kerry-Lieberman:

Unfortunately, it's as bad as we feared. Summaries of the proposal released this morning indicate they would eliminate critical tools needed to stabilize climate chaos while handing out billions in giveaways to some of the worst industrial polluters in the country.

NEXT: The 9/14 Presidency

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The name cracks me up — the American Power Act.

    1. If they wanted to draft a law that would destroy trees they would call it the American Forest Heritage Act.

      1. But at least two “centers” and a “union” are in favor of it. This is Middle America? speaking. To oppose this Balanced Approach to The Nation’s Energy Crisis? and Desperate Polar Bears?? amounts to little more than Extremist Tea-Bag Racism?.

        1. Buzzword bingo. The Sarcasm is strong in this one..

    2. The name cracks me up — the American Power Grab Act

      FIFY

      “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato”

  2. Yes we can…

    Destroy America’s energy future.

  3. On this issue, I would rather be on the side of illuminati conspiracy nuts than Lieberman.

  4. Who would you vote for, the ex-satanist preacher or Lieberman?

    1. I will take the ex satanist preacher.

      1. And I will raise you a pig-nosed Congressman.

        1. Sounds like we may have a Presidential ticket.

          1. Oink!

            1. NO. I want pig nosed, not an evil mole man from Planet X.

  5. The satanist preacher.

  6. Why can’t Joe Loserman retire and focus on the Oscar’s the Al?

  7. For all working families across the United States?from fishermen in the gulf to our farmers in the heartland?this bill provides real benefits for real Americans.

    Which are what again?

    reduce oil use, cut carbon pollution, invest in efficiency and clean energy technologies that create jobs, and protect consumers’ wallets.

    I don’t know whether they really believe that, or whether they don’t really believe that, but expect other people to believe that. Either way, I weep.

    Reducing oil use and cutting carbon pollution may have benefits THAT NEED TO BE SPELLED OUT–they are not ends in themselves.

    Investing “in efficiency and clean energy technologies that create jobs” just moves jobs from one place to another, probably with net destruction.

    Protecting consumers’ wallets is just a flat-out lie.

    Even assuming that all the most nightmarish global warming scenarios will come true if we don’t act to reduce C02 emissions, these are not the justifications. Why can’t they say what they mean?

    1. “Investing “in efficiency and clean energy technologies that create jobs” just moves jobs from one place to another, probably with net destruction.”

      There’s no “probably” about it. It WILL result in net destrction. Forcible substutition of higher cost energy for lower cost energy reduces productivity and creates a drag on the overall economy.

      But they have to gin up the new reationale of “jobs” for the scheme precisely because the public’s belief in the original rationale of climate disaster is rapidly fading away.

      So they are throwing everything and the kitchen sink into the mix in addition to the original chicken little “the sky is falling” routine – it’s an economic boon, the old fallacy of energy independence, etc.

      1. Yup, that’s the problem. People seem to assume that “creates jobs” means a net increase in the number of jobs. In fact you can create as many jobs as you want to by just paying people tax/borrowed money. It will just never result in a net increase in jobs throughout the economy. Not a lie, just really, despicably deceptive.

    2. “Why can’t they say what they mean?”

      Health care reform was marketed as a big money-saver, instead of the big benefits package that every liberal knew it was. Does anyone believe that Obama passed reform because he cared about “bending the cost curve” and not because he wanted to increase federal aid?

      Same thing here: they take a bill which seeks to minimize energy consumption, but they swaddle it in language of job-production. These legislators know they will lose any argument on the grounds of cutting energy use, because anyone with a brain knows that less energy use means more factories and businesses shutting down and jobs lost. Kerry-Lieberman instead argue in the realm of job-creation, because they can win on this issue with enough lobbyists supporting their story, enough positive press coverage, and enough of the Democratic majority who have nothing left to lose at this point.

    3. Is this the mad ducks next mile post?

  8. China, India, Indonesia and the rest of the world’s energy poor nations all give a resounding fuck you.

    We’re only talking about half the goddam planet here.

    1. China is spending more money developing renewable energy than we are and India is working as fast as it can to catch up. Meanwhile the US sits on its ass counting on 19th century energy technology and creaking along with the worst energy efficiency of any major industrialized country. The rest of the world is giving a “resounding” laugh as they leave us in the dust. But I guess we shouldn’t think about any of that, just make snide remarks about polar bears.

      1. China produces 70% of it’s electricity by burning coal. It is building new coal plants continuously.

        It is also doing it’s best to buy up all sorts of fossil fuel sources around the world – oil coal and natural gas.

        That doesn’t sound like a strategy of betting the farm on windmills and solar panels.

      2. The rest of the world is giving a “resounding” laugh

        I, for one, am giving an actually resounding laugh at the moment.

      3. China is the biggest CO2 emitting nation on the planet. But you knew that, right?

        If you think the rush towards industrialzation in the Middle Kingdom is going to be slowed by a sudden shift to wind and solar, you’re daft.

  9. And the idiot politicians keep chugging along on the AGW train as if there were no recent causes for doubt. Of course, they can’t let an opportunity for control to pass by; if they wait, complete debunking of AGW might happen, and then what do they do?

    1. Continue with the controls because the controls will provide so many benefits they just can’t be repealed. Didn’t you hear that fuckhead Thomas Friedman on TV talking about how AGW may be a lie but if it is “it is the most noble lie ever told”.

      This is not about AGW. This about finding an excuse to put a boot on your face.

      1. Did he really say that?

        Hello, lunch, nice to see you again!

        1. Here’s how he put it on Meet the Press: “What I say is if climate change is a hoax, it’s the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the United States of America. Because everything we would do to get ready for climate change, to build this new green industry, would make us more respected, more entrepreneurial, more competitive, more healthy as a country.”

          http://nrd.nationalreview.com/…..Y4NDg5NmY=

          Yes he did really say that, although he said “hoax” not “lie”.

    2. Fight global cooling, of course. If that won’t sell we can argue about the disaster of climate stagnation.

      I believe that AGW is real. I believe it will cause hardships for many. I’m also skeptical enough to say the AGW theory and predictions put forth by some climate scirntists are not on the level of relativity and evolution.

      That is, they are hardly settled science.

      1. Yes GW is real. We are either moving into an ice age or away from one.

    3. You seem to think AGW was ever something other than a statist stalking-horse.

  10. More and more I’m leaning towards technological climate management solutions.

    Eden never existed and we aren’t going to create one by making energy more expensive.

    1. First we have to define an optimum. What criteria shall we consider? Ability to support humanity? Preservation of current species? Maximizing polar bear habitat? After you’ve got that defined tell me which side of the optimum we’re on. Then we can move on to a discussion of whether or not we can predict the medium and long term effect of large term technological climate fiddling.

      1. Following Hippocrates’ dictum “first do no harm” stabilazation of global climate at (out of my rectum) 1960 levels seems reasonable.

  11. Nuclear winter is the solution to AGW. It’s just a matter of picking targets wisely.

  12. It’s just a matter of picking targets wisely.

    I say we start with DC. Nuke it from orbit; it’s the only way to be sure.

    1. Game over, man! Game over!

      1. Including this one, exactly how many global warmings have you fixed?

        1. Well why don’t you put Xeones in charge?!?

    2. It would have to be during the State of the Union address.

      1. I was wondering how you could do it since so many of the agencies are spread across town. A small tactical nuke hitting the capital during that address would solve a lot of problems.

        1. Somewhere in the NSA, you probably just rated a pop up.

        2. But you are missing the original intent. Small tactical devices won’t cause nuclear winter. You need multiple H-bombs for that.

          1. Every major renovation project has a couple of little must-do projects that popup after you pull down the sheet rock.

  13. I wonder if there’s going to be an amendment in the Bill to tax Bernanke and the SEC for all of the smoke that they are blowing up everybody’s asses.

    1. Citi and Deutsche now on the list of “probes” by the SEC, along with Goldman, Morgan Stanley and Moody’s, and JP Morgan by the CFTC.

  14. Let’s ask Spain how the “green jobs” stuff worked out for them, shall we?

    For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

    The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power – – which are charged to consumers in their bills — translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

    And that’s the good news. But I’m sure it wouldn’t play out like this in the US, right? Riiiiiight.

    Also, enough about the “foreign oil dependence”. We aren’t going to ever give up our dependence on Canada and Mexico for the vast majority of our oil. Venezuela would be tough to kick (I think they give like 23%) but Saudi Arabia could turn off our spigot tomorrow and we wouldn’t have any major issues. We don’t have a security issue when it comes to our “dependence on foreign oil” unless you are afraid that Canada and Mexico will join together to attack us simultaneously.

    1. We just need to annex Canada and Mexico, then work our way down through Central and South America.

      1. As I will most likely be a resident of Costa Rica or Panama when you are working your way south, expect armed resistance.

        The expats down there didn’t move there because they liked the US so much, and I haven’t talked to a single one that isn’t armed.

        1. I saw some show on TLC (house hunters or something) where they were trying to find a house for couple retiring from the rust belt to Panama.

          Seemed like a pretty rational choice to me.

      2. Well that will take care of 95% of the problem with illegal immigration, since the immigrants will already be *in* the United States.

        1. I figure we take all the illegals within the current borders that have learned some English and put them in charge of Mexico. Being here illegally shows a certain level of drive and ambition.

    2. If Saudi Arabia turned off the spigot tomorrow, we would have major issues. We don’t buy much oil from the Arabs, but Europeans do, and we’d suddenly be in a bidding war with them for Mexican, Canadian, and Gulf of Mexico oil.

      We would get to keep most of our Venezuelan oil, though, since only a few refineries can run the crap.

      1. If Saudi Arabia turned off the spigot tomorrow, we would have major issues.

        The world would have major issues, as would Saudi Arabia themselves since they have no other real economic output. My point was simply that our “foreign oil dependency” would not be affected if suddenly the Arab nations chose not to sell to the US. If you factor in the cost we pay for maintaining security for Europeans and others to get oil from the middle east we would probably save money if that happened. I wish you good luck with France maintaining the Suez canal.

        Either way, dependence on foreign oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela is in no way a security “problem” that lessening our dependence would solve.

    3. This study rested on very poor scholarship – using simplistic calculations in lieu of accepted economic modeling techniques – and has been thoroughly debunked by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf

      1. Indeed – but does not the underlying point here hold? Removing dollars from the private sector and reallocating them according to the whims of politicians, or hell, even technocrats, is less efficient than letting those private dollars flow to more profitable investments. All else being equal, would we not expect the system that produces more wealth to produce more and higher paying jobs?

        If your goal is something other than wealth creation, why even care about jobs? They are just hiding the ball.

      2. Interesting, but the paper by NREL seems to do what many others pushing green jobs seem to want to do in that they wish to include “externalities” (undefinable emission costs in terms of Global Warming and the effects thereof) in the equation when determining the actual calculations involved in a cost benefit analysis. The Spain report admittedly does not factor in these costs, since they are technically arbitrary and one could pick a number out of a hat to make their wanted conclusion fit the equation. The report from Spain dealt with the hard numbers available, not arbitrary “global warming costs”.

        But don’t just take that report. There are several others that clearly show that green tech and jobs ending up both raising costs for energy and being a net job loss overall.

        Take away the Spanish report if you like, and instead read Ron Bailey’s report about the green job effects in California, from more recent studies.

        You can try and sell me on the need for lowering emissions as a way to reduce pollution, and I’ll probably agree with you, but don’t try and sell me some unicorns with it. Renewable energy will cost more money and will not magically create jobs without taking away from others.

        1. You argue that we should not take the expected job losses from climate change into account when doing a cost/benefit calculation. To me, this seems like working out the costs and benefits to your body of taking a heart medication, without taking into account the fact that you’ve got a heart condition. Of course, if you do the analysis without context it will come out that you shouldn’t take the medicine. But the context is the whole point.

          1. You argue that we should not take the expected job losses from climate change into account when doing a cost/benefit calculation.

            Would you care to explain how you come up with a number that accurately predicts “expected job losses from climate change”? And how do you know that climate change will end up being a net job loss? A warmer climate will allow for more land to become arable, so I’m not entirely convinced that global warming will result in less jobs. It may even end up producing more jobs. Indeed, some argue that global warming has opened up the McClure Strait, the most direct route of the Northwest Passage through the Arctic, which is a boon to the shipping industry.

            Let’s see you show your work about why global warming will be a “net loss in jobs”.

            1. Tman: just as there is no reason to try to count pin-head dancing angels, there is no reason to try to count jobs. No one has any idea how policies affect jobs, and only political hacks think that jobs are desirable thing in the first place.

              If you want low unemployment, you need a reasonably stable economy. It is INSTABILITY that causes joblessness, as people cannot adapt to changing situations instaneously. That is what we are seeing now: people are jobless because they cannot switch their location and skills as fast as the situation has changed.

              Now which seems more stable: an economy based on renewable energy, or an economy based on black goo whose price is determined by our worst enemies and speculators?

              1. just as there is no reason to try to count pin-head dancing angels, there is no reason to try to count jobs.

                Uh, okay. So you agree that arguing that RE will create new “green jobs” that will result in a net gain in employment is ridiculous.

                Are you and MNG starting to SEE THE LIGHT??????

                It is INSTABILITY that causes joblessness, as people cannot adapt to changing situations instaneously. That is what we are seeing now: people are jobless because they cannot switch their location and skills as fast as the situation has changed.

                Here is where you reveal your fundamental misunderstanding of free markets. INSTABILITY and CHANGE are the only CONSTANT in the world today. There is no such thing as a “reasonably stable economy” that is immune to the constant threat from innovation and instability. Indeed, the one thing that has made the US economy as strong as it is today is the ability of Americans to ADAPT to constantly changing market forces.

                Pretending we can all go back to the way things were when the t-shirts and toaster ovens were made in the US is not only unrealistic but also entirely regressive. The thing that kills any economy today is its inability to ADAPT to the constantly changing fundamentals of market forces.

                Now which seems more stable: an economy based on renewable energy, or an economy based on black goo whose price is determined by our worst enemies and speculators?

                Again, we get the majority of our oil from Canada and Mexico, who aren’t our worst enemies. And considering the cost to maintain an economy based on “black goo” is substantially less expensive than one based on unicorn farts (since there are no economies that are even remotely in danger of becoming “based on renewable energy”) I will choose the one that gives us the cheapest energy.

                1. Tman|5.12.10 @ 7:42PM|#
                  Uh, okay. So you agree that arguing that RE will create new “green jobs” that will result in a net gain in employment is ridiculous.

                  Almost as ridiculous as the repeated claims by the right that it will destroy jobs. Both are nothing more than fantasy calculations, using utterly useless methodologies whose noise is far larger than the signal.

                  Are you and MNG starting to SEE THE LIGHT??????

                  Here is where you reveal your fundamental misunderstanding of free markets. INSTABILITY and CHANGE are the only CONSTANT in the world today.

                  I never said that the economy either is or should be completely stable. It is the rate of change that matters. If the economy changes too fast, businesses, government policies, and individuals cannot adapt fast enough, resulting in downturns and layoffs. A changing economy is a good thing, but it needs to happen on human timeframes.

                  Again, we get the majority of our oil from Canada and Mexico, who aren’t our worst enemies.

                  Oil is fungible, silly goose. Those who have the marginal supplies are those who matter. That would be Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.

          2. Erica: A number of points. The conclusions of the NREL study are highly suspect. For example, an independent study in Germany came to basically the same conclusions as the Spanish study with regard to the ridiculously high costs of creating “green jobs” through subsidies and mandates. I quote from it below:

            While employment projections in the renewable sector convey seemingly impressive prospects for gross job growth, they typically obscure the broader implications for economic welfare by omitting any accounting of off-setting impacts. These impacts include, but are not limited to, job losses from crowding out of cheaper forms of conventional energy generation, indirect impacts on upstream industries, additional job losses from the drain on economic activity precipitated by higher electricity prices, private consumers’ overall loss of purchasing power due to higher electricity prices, and diverting funds from other, possibly more beneficial investment.

            Proponents of renewable energies often regard the requirement for more workers to produce a given amount of energy as a benefit, failing to recognize that this lowers the output potential of the economy and is hence counterproductive to net job creation. Significant research shows that initial employment benefits from renewable policies soon turn negative as additional costs are incurred. Trade and other assumptions in those studies claiming positive employment turn out to be unsupportable.

            In the end, Germany’s PV promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as 175,000 ? (US $ 240,000). ?

            Although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in the media as setting a “shining example in providing a harvest for the world” (The Guardian 2007), we would instead regard the country’s experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits.

            In addition, the NREL study is at least intellectually suspect since its conclusions were vetted by wind industry lobbyists before being released.

            1. Ron: Please think about some math theory for a while.

              Look at this simple equation.

              A = Z / (X – Y)

              Assume Z is some big number, and X and Y are in the same ballpark.

              Then note how utterly sensitive A is to minor changes in X and Y.

              Now apply this to the Spain study. I am too lazy too look, but let’s say 10 billion spent (reasonably accurate, probably), and let’s say the author guesses 100,000 pin-head angel jobs created, and 90,000 pin-head angel jobs lost. Wow! That’s a really high cost per job. But if you change that to 105k and 85k (~5% changes), A changes by a factor of two!

              Any good scientist knows that dividing by a difference can be incredibly noisy, as it magnifies any small variations.

              I think these studies are bunk, because there is no way to count pin-head angels one tenth as accurately as you would need to do the calculation you want to do. It is all speculation.

            2. Spain has a 20% unemployment rate.

              If the ‘green jobs” theory worked, they wouldn’t.

              Enough said.

          3. “You argue that we should not take the expected job losses from climate change into account when doing a cost/benefit calculation.”

            Since no one is the least bit capable of actually proving that we are changing the climate, there is no reason to factor in any ginned up “costs” associated with it.

  15. “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a birkenstock stamping on a human face…”

  16. Wow that is just too cool dude. Well done.

    Lou
    http://www.anon-posting.tk

  17. If there is any more anti-libertarian politician than that fucking cock-sucking Jew Lieberman, I’d like to know.

    1. Fuck off with the “Jew” comments. Lieberman could be an atheist or a Satanist and this bill would still suck.

      1. You can be Jewish, atheist AND Satanist, all at the same time, Christer.
        So I’m sticking with “cock-sucking Jew.”

        1. agent provacateur alert…someone is trying to make Reason look like biggots.

          1. It’s just Jamie Kelly. Foul-mouthed is his natural state of being.

            1. Fuck you, nigger licker.

              1. Chow Mein Noodle Casserole

                1 lb Ground beef
                2 stalks Celery, cut into small pieces (optional)
                1 can cream of celery soup
                1/3 to ? cu instant rice
                1 onion, diced
                1 can cream of mushroom soup
                2 c water
                1 can chow mein noodles

                Cook meat, onions and celery in skillet until meat is done. Drain. In a large casserole, mix cream soups, water and rice. Add meat mixture, stirring until well mixed. Bake in a 350-degree oven for 30-40 minutes or until mixture is thick and rice is done. Remove from oven; sprinkle top of casserole with noodles. Return to oven for 10 more minutes to heat and brown noodles.

        2. And I will stick with you being a troll.

        3. Hello Shit Facktory!

  18. When I was a kid in high school circa 1980, everyone across the political spectrum was absolutely convinced that the earth was out of oil. Anyone like Milton Friedman who argued that the “energy crisis” was caused by political interference in petroleum markets were hooted down as cranks or derided as stooges of the evil oil industry. Four years later the entire ten year “crisis” suddenly disappeared in a world awash in oil.

    The “energy crisis” demonstrated how easy it is for mass hysterias and delusional models of reality to take hold of virtually every polity on earth. It demonstrated how the political, media and scientific establishment of the entire planet could fall for a single fallacious idea.

    Yet we’ve learned nothing. The same part of the political spectrum who was so spectacularly wrong back then (and in some cases the same individuals) are the same people pushing AGW today. For some reason, few seem to question why these people always see some great disaster on the horizon which can only be averted by a highly centralized expansive state. Few seem to question why we should believe them today after such a long track record of always being wrong.

    Looked at from a historical view, its very clear that AGW fits a long standing pattern in which leftists claim to have absolutely predicted some future harm and that only the stupid and venal refuse to see how right they are. In every case, they have claimed that leaving people free to run their own lives and make their own choices will result in doom for humanity.

    AGW will eventually fail as a political movement. It is based on the slipshod work of a shockingly small number of scientist (

    1. Totalitarian nonsense is always dressed up as science. Marxism was a “science”. Fascism had its own branch of “science” that purported to prove beyond debate the inferiority of the “lesser races”.

    2. Politicians might have thought that the world was running out of oil in 1980, but few or no scientists did. Today, almost all credible scientists (not including those who graduated from Oral Roberts University or something) think man made global warming is real.

      Global warming is definitely real. The main open question is how bad the effects are and whether or not those effects can be realistically countered without completely killing the world economy.

      1. “Today, almost all credible scientists (not including those who graduated from Oral Roberts University or something) think man made global warming is real.”

        First, that is completely untrue. There are plenty of credible scientists who do not buy into AGW. To claim otherwise or to claim that the people who are some kind of religious fanatics from Oral Roberts University is just pathetic and beneath contempt.

        Second, even if it were true, it proves nothing. Science is done by experimentation not by consensus. The scientific consensus has been wrong before and will be wrong again. A hundred years ago every credible scientist in the world believed that electrons rotated around the nucleus like planets around the sun. Later, when there were observations that proved that couldn’t be so, a new theory was developed.

        AGW has never made one prediction that has been verified. Unless and until it does, the consensus means nothing.

        1. It is completely untrue that my statement was completely untrue. From Wikipedia:

          The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was very likely caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[2] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanic eruptions had a small cooling effect after 1950.[3][4] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

          If you think Wikipedia is a bad source, look up the cites yourself. Or provide a link that says more than, say, 5% of scientists in the field disagree with man-made global warming. There are not “plenty of credible scientists who do not buy into AGW”. Name one.

          Second, your argument that “well, maybe someday scientists will think differently” is just silly. We have to deal with the here and now, not fantasy and make believe of what scientists might think in the future.

          Now, I do agree with the author of this article that it’s quite possible that governmental attempts to fix the problem won’t fix it and/or will kill the economy. That is the discussion that we should be having, not whether or not leeches are the proper cure for disease or whether or not the sun revolves around the earth.

          1. The CRU is totally discredited. The IPCC report that uses the data is now suspect. You need to refer to more current information if you have a point to make.

            1. The CRU is totally discredited

              In the minds of right-wing crackpots, surely. It has been totally vindicated by fellow scientists.

              You will be remembered by future generations the same way slaveowners and Nazis are remembered now. I wish I believed that you had an enternal soul, such that you could look down (or up, more likely) and watch your grave being spit upon.

              1. I am a professional engineer. I have read the emails and the code that was leaked. If it is a representative sample of the CRU work products, then the datasets produced by CRU are totally unverifiable — not true, not false, unverifiable.

              2. You will be remembered by future generations the same way slaveowners and Nazis are remembered now. I wish I believed that you had an enternal soul, such that you could look down (or up, more likely) and watch your grave being spit upon.

                I’ve tried in the past to engage in reasonable polite debate with you Chad. I base my concerns with the AGW theories and action plans based upon my personal experience as professional engineer. I am perfectly capable of understanding the processes of collecting data, peforming statisticaly analysis, and coming to conclusions within a specified confidence level. It is my opinion that the operation of the CRU has been totally unprofessional, to the point that people should be fired.

                You can’t certainly disgree with my opinions. But you step over the line when you equate me with slaveowners and Nazis.

                So I won’t waste any more of my time on you Chad.

                1. All you can come up with is “their code was ugly, so who cares if it has been reproduced by several other groups”?

                  Wow, you really are desperate.

                2. All you can come up with is “their code was ugly, so who cares if it has been reproduced by several other groups”?

                  Wow, you really are desperate.

              3. Hey Chad, does an eternal soul come with an 8% real rate of return for someone born in the 70s, or is less than 2%?

                1. Are all eternal souls single males who ignore disability insurance?

                  1. I don’t know, but you claimed I’d get a 8% real rate of return, then you became so proud of the less than 2%. So, does the eternal soul have the 8% or what?

          2. Since you like Wikipedia:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..arison.png

            If you strip off the CRU/Hadley data, it would appear that we are roughly at the same temperature as the Medieval Warm Period. If you follow the links to the Helocene Optimum you will see we are below the highest average temperature since the last ice age.

            So it is obvious that we are in a warming trend, one that occurred after a cooling trend which occurred after the MWP. What does it mean? It could very well be that industrial discharges into the atmosphere are amplifying a natural warming trend. The ultimate question is whether or not the trend keeps going up or if it turns into another cooling trend.

            I’m not ready to unwind the industrial revolution because of the IPCC report.

            1. If you strip off the “Hadley Data”, you just stripped off the last thirty years from that graph…you know, when the warming actually happend.

              *facepalm*

              You do realize that several groups have done the same calculations, and gotten essentially the same answers, right?

              1. The referenced chart includes datasets reaching well into the 90’s. Since the hypothesis is that green house gases are largely responsible for the increase in average temperature over the course of the industrial revolution (a couple of hundred years or more), the remaining data is perfectly adequate to examine the hypothesis.

                The collection of datasets in the chart do indicate a steady warming from the little ice age onward. However, longer term datasets going back hundreds of thousands of years lead one to conclude that the current rise in temperature is well within the normal variation seen during the evolution of mankind. Hence, the case for cause-and-effect regarding green house gases and rising temperattures is not a clear cut as everyone claims it is.

                So in summary, I do not deny a steady rise in temperature from the 1600s onward. I do however challenge the hypothesis that green house gases are driving our climate out of a stable equilibrium to extremes that are unprecedented.

                1. Kinnath, the temperature anomaly for Jan-March was .75! That’s so damned high, it is literally off the chart you showed.

                  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

                  You can’t just go lopping off the part of the data you don’t like.

                  And please, for the love of God, let us know what magical unicorn farts you DO hypothesize is causing the warming. After all, a very important and critical element of attacking one theory is, you know, to suggest another one that is consistent with the data. Despite a lot of hellfire spat by the deniers, you do not have one that stands up to even a little bit of scrutiny.

                  You claim to be an engineer, yet yammer about “natural variation”. Yet an engineer would know that “natural variation” does not exist (except at the quantum level, perhaps). If the earth’s temperature or anything else varies, it varies FOR A GOD DAMNED REASON.

                  You absolutely and utterly MUST come up with your alternative hypothesis, and provide the data to support it. You can’t. Ergo, you have nothing.

      2. Holocene Climatic Optimum — Discuss

      3. I agree: global warming is as real as global cooling. The temperature output of the climate system has to always be doing one or the other, depending on your time window.

        Global warming driven primarily by anthropogenic factors, on the other hand….

      4. Politicians might have thought that the world was running out of oil in 1980, but few or no scientists did.

        That is simply not true. You saw the same “scientific consensus” about absolute oil depletion that you see now about global warming. The National Academy of Science signed onto the concept as did the leading scientific organizations in all developed nations. The U.N. of course whole heartedly endorsed it.

        Scientist like Steven Chu, now the current presidential science advisor, threw their entire scientific reputation into the idea. Any scientist who disagreed got the exact same treatment that those who question the rigor and predictive power of AGW receive today. All the “smart” people new that the world was permanently out of oil.

        The social, media and political behavior was exactly the same as with AGW today. Your personal insistence that anyone who doesn’t believe in AGW is corrupt is an exact duplicate of the slurs hurled at those who tried to point out that oil wasn’t running out.

        It’s amazing to me how quickly the “energy crisis” went down the memory hole. Of course, a lot of people have every incentive to make people think that the hysteria over AGW is a new and unprecedented thing. In reality, it just part of repeating pattern.

        1. You saw the same “scientific consensus” about absolute oil depletion that you see now about global warming

          Citation, please.

          Even those who WERE talking about peak oil back then, based on a world-wide Hubbert curve, were predicted we would experience the peak, oh, in the 2000s.

          Oil production has been declining since July 2008. It may climb back above that level in 2012 and stay modestly above it for a few years, but with few major projects scheduled to come online in that time frame, depletion of wells will drag production back down below today’s levels before 2020.

          And unless you magically think we are going to find a new Saudia Arabia every couple of years, it isn’t going back up either.

    3. Keynsianism was based on slipshod work and it is still wrecking economies all over the world.

      1. Or do you think the government supplied Aggregate Demand boosters are gonna get this economy pumping along soon?

        “April’s tax deficit of $83 billion was the highest April deficit on record. America is now more bankrupt than ever. Income was $245.3 billion, 8% below the total recorded last April. Spending was $328.0 billion, up 14% year-over-year.”

        so far the stimulus has failed…and the only rection has been to call for new taxes and more stimulus.

  19. Lieberman and Kerry – two prime examples of the very worst America has to offer.

  20. James Sensenbrenner is a representative, not a senator.

    1. Colin: Indeed he is. I will fix my inadvertent promotion (or was it a demotion?)

  21. Without “hide the decline”, this bill would be a slam dunk. Now, it likely will never be debated in the Senate. Somebody deserves the Congressional Medal of Honor for saving us from this disaster.

  22. What we need is a cabinet level agency that can reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

  23. Naw. What we need is a cabinet level agency that is funded entirely by predation on the budgets of other agencies.

    1. good idea R C Dean…potential there

      1. I suggest bumping up the Comptroller General of the United States, I already like the way they think:

        For every fiscal year since 1996, when consolidated financial statements began, the Comptroller General has refused to endorse the accuracy of the consolidated figures for the federal budget, citing “(1) serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense, (2) the federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies, and (3) the federal government’s ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements.”

  24. Federal Government: Steel Cage Match.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.