Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > July > 14 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USPresident Bush balks on global warming
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
In normal times, the fate of Planet Earth would not ride on a decision issued in Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta. Decisions of such importance are supposed to be made in more lofty arenas, such as the White House or Congress.
However, because the decision-makers in Washington have forfeited their legal and moral responsibilities, a county judge hundreds of miles away has been forced to step into the vacuum to address global warming. And in a recent ruling by Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore, the planet emerged victorious.
At least temporarily.
The case in question involves a large coal-burning power plant proposed for construction in rural Early County, along the Chattahoochee River. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups sued to block the plant, charging among other things that it would emit up to 9 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, a primary culprit in global climate change.
In most circles, there’s no longer any question that the planet is warming and that mankind is driving that change. Both Barack Obama and John McCain acknowledge the challenge and promise to address it. The National Intelligence Council, comprising the CIA and other agencies, reports that climate change could “seriously affect U.S. national security interests” in the next 20 years. “Logic suggests the conditions exacerbated [by climate change] would increase the pool of potential recruits for terrorism,” Tom Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence, warned a House committee studying the issue.
Even President Bush grudgingly admits mankind’s role in climate change — the scientific evidence is too overwhelming to deny. But he nonetheless stubbornly declines to do anything serious to address the problem.
In fact, Bush and his administration continue to thumb their noses at a U.S. Supreme Court decision on global warming issued more than a year ago that required the government to take action or explain why.
The court noted that under the Clean Air Act, the federal government is required to regulate any pollutant that endangers the public’s health and welfare. It also noted the overwhelming evidence that CO2 endangers national security, the integrity of our coastlines and human health, among other things. Under the law, the administration had two choices: Explain why CO2 is not a danger, or start reducing CO2 emissions.
The administration has done neither. In fact, when the EPA sent the president its official report in December citing “compelling and robust” evidence that CO2 endangers human welfare, the White House refused to even open the e-mail.
In effect, that dereliction of duty dumped the problem into the lap of Judge Moore, who had to decide whether the coal-burning plant proposed by Longleaf Energy in Early County could be permitted without addressing the issue of CO2 emissions.
It couldn’t have been easy. On the one hand, it’s clear that CO2 contributes to global warming, and the Supreme Court had left little doubt that if CO2 hadn’t yet been officially designated a dangerous pollutant, it would be soon. Roughly a third of the nation’s current CO2 emissions come from existing coal-burning plants, and adding to that number would be irresponsible.
On the other hand, how could Georgia try to limit emissions of CO2 when no rules, regulations or emission limits had been set for the pollutant nationally or in other states? How could Longleaf be required to install hugely expensive technology that no other plant was required to use?
In the end, Moore courageously and perhaps a bit foolishly revoked the Longleaf permit, citing not just the CO2 issue but other problems as well. That ruling will be appealed, and it will be surprising if the CO2 portion of the ruling is upheld. At the moment it’s still a little bit ahead of the law.
In moral and practical terms, however, Moore’s ruling points in the direction we must inevitably head, and it’s time Congress and the next president follow her lead.
Comments
By Copyleft
July 14, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
But denial is so much CHEAPER, Jay. At least, until our kids and grandkids choke and bake to death… and what have they ever done for us?
By RW-(the original)
July 14, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
It’s courageous for a judge to ignore the law and make a ruling based on their own moral compass?
Call me old fashioned, but I prefer judges to stick to the law and if I don’t like the law to try to persuade the legislative bodies to change them.
And since when is CO2 a pollutant? Try eliminating all CO2 and see how well you fare.
By ByteMan
July 14, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
@RW: CO2 is a pollutant in the quantities we’re producing. It’s not all or nothing, but you’re smart enough to know that. It’s like saying “Hydrogen is not a pollutant, so we’ll dump a billion tons a day into the atmosphere and nothing bad should come of it”.
By Joey
July 14, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
Some people, identifying themselves as scientist, wrote computer software programs to model Earth’s temperature. They selected the data to be analyzed and assigned each options for the software to choose.
Low and behold, the program showed exactly what the people claimed was true.
Who would have thunk it?
By NewsFlash
July 14, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
Come on folks. Let’s quit beating around the bush and just call it like it is. Let’s start by looking at the facts. First, we have an administration that is willing to wage war on the world and kill tens of thousands of people on a hunch that there might be a possibility of a bad person that could one day maybe have an evil offspring that could perhaps get a weapon and maybe use it to possibly kill thousands of other American people such as themselves. What. Did you think the administration is doing all this killing just to protect us average American citizens. Yet, on the other hand we have an administration that is willing to ignore the fact that humans do have an impact on the world in which we live and chooses to instead wait until there is irrefutable, undeniable, verified proof positive that humans are not only a major source of adverse climate change but that the exact measure and source of that climate change as well as the exact amount of change that we humans can make is known prior to doing anything. So, what do I have to do. Spell it out. Why not try advancing civilization for a little while instead of wiping more of it out. What have you got to lose. Tell me. What are you REALLY afraid of. Is Armageddon coming. Is there a Muslim hiding behind a Bush with a big bad bomb that’s gonna go BANG and splatter us all over the place. Do you want to spend your life working toward something that has a chance of making a positive change or do you want to continue to live in fear and kill everyone that says BOO. Well?
By PoFo
July 14, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
I’m not sure about global warming being a problem. Show me the bodies. Show me the dead trees. Show me the anything bad.
The only thing for sure is that planet formation causes cyclical mean temperature variations that occur across the millenium over and over.
Burn the coal, and we’ll see that it will rain more here, and that’s a win win.
WIthout pollution, we’d have no rain, thus the air is probably too clean. We need to dimantle our catalytic converters, and burn more coal, and then everything will be perfect.
plus, if we could get everyone in cobb county to flush their toilets at exactly noon today, we can probably take down the Allatoona Dam, man. Then we’d have floods and widespread death, and that would solve our traffic problems.
Also, I dont think our government is fascist enough. Change the constitution and elect Bush for 16 more years!!!!! Cheney TOO!
I love cheney. Nero’s got nothing on him.
By theScientist
July 14, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
In most liberal circles, there’s no longer any question that the planet is warming and that mankind is driving that change.
However, in most sceintific circles, there’s never been any question that the planet is warming, only questions about mankind’s level of contribution to it…, as is still the case.
By getalife "whiners"
July 14, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this
Yeah, the Pope should stop whining.
By Dusty
July 14, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Ho hum, all you pseudo scientists please finish your schemes for ruining America’s economic system.
Let me know when China and India have agreed to try and stop their billowing pollution.
After you have taken care of that, talk some more about your ignorant cures for what ails this planet.
Remember to get some GOOD excuses ‘cause President Bush won’t be around for you to dump your psycho sentiments upon his shoulders.
Lib losers all. The suns been shining and warming your heads too long. But nothing is going to cure that. It is endemic.
By RW-(the original)
July 14, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this
A federal appeals court yesterday threw out a major component of the Bush administration’s effort to reduce unhealthy levels of soot and smog in Eastern and Midwestern states, a decision that environmental groups worry will delay action on air pollution well into the next administration.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled unanimously that the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority in instituting a rule that would have established a cap-and-trade system for soot and smog.
The court ruling came on the same day that the administration said it would take no steps under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, even though the EPA formally announced that it would seek public comment on the issue.
Where do you suppose this ruling falls on the Bookman scale of courageous judging?
By NewsFlash
July 14, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
This just in,
Scientists question more than just man’s impact on global warming. Indeed, they also look at how mankind can contribute to making the world a better place to live. In fact, scientists like to remind mankind that they merely discovered the power of the atom and developed the atomic bomb in order to satisfy the cravings of politicians, non-scientists, for more power. It was the scientific community that warned the less forward thinking, the politicians, that such power was not meant to be placed in the hands of the power-crazed. Unfortunately, scientists find that far too many people, especially politicians, are more interested in the short-term aspects of a given scenario. They may argue, for example, that they won’t be alive in a hundred years so why bother even looking at it. They say that’s a problem best left for their children to deal with”. Scientists, on the other hand, once again find themselves speaking to no avail — their words falling on deaf ears.
By JAY BOOKMAN
July 14, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this
Pseudo scientists, Dusty?
You mean like the one who posted as theScientist, who oddly shares an IP address with Rightytighty and Reality King?
Apparently one of those guys has a Phd in something.
By N-GA
July 14, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this
“In fact, Bush and his administration continue to thumb their noses at a U.S. Supreme Court decision on global warming issued more than a year ago that required the government to take action or explain why.”
From this statement one could infer that the judge is trying to enforce the law. That is, enforce what the Supreme Court said about requiring the government to take action to protect citizens from harm.
There are thousands of Germans who wish that their judges had refused to follow the law. Remember, those laws that prohibited Jews from doing so many otherwise lawful activities?
And what about the Jim Crow laws? There are simply too many examples where Judges should/could have done something that was morally right, but chose not to.
By RW-(the original)
July 14, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
N-GA,
The judges have to follow the law, not make it, or our entire system of government crumbles. Although in fairness, that’s probably what you want.
Throwing Nazi Germany into the mix to justify your desire for us to be governed by unaccountable judges is absurd unless you’re trying to make the point that we’re just like them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’d love to see a list of names that share Polly’s IP address, but I bet it would shut the servers down.
By NewsFlash
July 14, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
This breaking news just in,
China and India have offered to cut down on pollution just as soon as the “just can’t ever get enough cheap stuff” consumer oriented Americans decide to try a little conservation for a change.
Each country also replied to criticism from Bush regarding their impact on the environment with,
By Midori
July 14, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
MOSCOW, Russia (AP) — Russian scientists are evacuating a research station built on an ice floe drifting in the western Arctic Ocean because global warming is melting the ice early, a spokesman said.
I wonder if these scientist pass Crusty’s muster?
By Maniac is accurate
July 14, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
I think it’s funny Jay that you, the Johnny come lately blogger finds it so amusing to point out that people post on AJC blogs using multiple IDs. We knew it already, Jay. I do it often at Wooten’s blog. Yet, for all your technical ability is it possible you don’t know what it is you need to do make your name blue? That color is a sure indicator on other AJC blogs that the author is indeed the one who posted. Otherwise, I could post as JAY BOOKMAN and no one would know he difference.
By RW-(the original)
July 14, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
Ice is melting in the middle of July??? Stop the presses!
By JAY BOOKMAN
July 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
I would know the difference, Maniac. And the post would come down and the poster would be banned. That has seemed to suffice, since no one has attempted what you suggest.
And multiple IDs are just fine. However, I do have a problem when people use them to deceive readers, and when I see that I will correct the deception if possible. I’m trying to run things a little more cleanly here, with some basic standards of civility. We’ll see how that works out longterm.
Because some of you do make it difficult.
By Ryno
July 14, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this
It is funny how information continues to get stripped from “climate change crisis” reports. If all circles of people know it is certain about climate change why did 30,000 scientists sign a petition calling it bunk. It is funny, how people don’t realize that all the plants in the world take in CO2 without it there would be no plants. Humans breath out CO2. Also I am sure this mass hysteria by people like Bookman never tell what percentage CO2 is in the atmosphere. I am sure most people would think well it has to be at least 10-20% if we are going to kill our planet this century. It is .04%. Wow, so large.The world hasn’t warmed since 1998. In the 70s it was global cooling. In the 90s and early 00’s it was global warming. Now it is climate change, yea its called the weather. Why is it called climate change, so liberals can blame any weather anomoly on us. Why do people not see this?
By Midori
July 14, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this
RW wanna cracker?
By Maniac is accurate
July 14, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this
Makes sense. I switch IDs usually for comic effect, not to agree with myself, or make it appear there are other blog readers who agree with me.
But really, haven’t they taught you how to make your name blue? Ask Wooten, he can show you how.
By getalife "whiners"
July 14, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this
Well Jay,
RW uses many names so he will keep you busy.
I confess to adding “whiners” to my name in homage to Gramm, Will and the establishment.
Its the new “unpatriotic” to silence the masses.
By Dusty
July 14, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
Dear Jay Bookman, 12:05
If these are not pseudo scientists posting here, then you are the identical twin brother of Maureen Dowd. (Did I get that right?)
As “Scientist” said, the question is how much of a contribution to earth warming are the many warm bodies contributing here. That is the nebulous question.
As other “scientists” in Darfur, Somalia, Congo and Zimbabwee try to rid this earth of many warm human bodies, the Sierra Club entourage will cool the earth by hugging trees. So it goes.
But I remind you of the never ending lib closer “Bush did it”.
By N-GA
July 14, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
RW,
I’m certainly not trying to bring down the government…that would make me an anarchist. But the courts are around to interpret the law, and also to discern what laws are legal and/or illegal. That’s what the Supreme Court does. Oh, and the Constitution is imperfect. It has had to be amended what, 27 times? Interesting that the 18th Amendment (1919) made the manufacture, importation and exportation of alcoholic beverages illegal. Even more interesting that our government had to repeal that same Amendment (1933).
Ordinarily it is better to use the law to change the law. But (IMO), there are times when that is simply immoral. Both parties enact more legislation than we know what to do with. But the GOP would likely modify the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage…a patently absurd application of the law…if they thought they could get away with it.
The very existence of this country is based upon the concept of individual freedoms, something those uber-nationalists among us would like to see restricted.
By RW-(the original)
July 14, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
N-GA,
Amendments are pretty much the ultimate in legislative process. I’m afraid we’re getting a little too far off topic though so I’m going to drop this subject after this post.
I don’t agree with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that outlaws gay marriage, but there is a problem with the full faith and credit clause that needs to be addressed and probably in amendment form because DOMA will eventually be trumped by full faith and credit. As it is we have a court in Massachusetts and a court in California making law and a challenge to DOMA will have another court making gay marriage the law of the land.
By Taxpayer
July 14, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
The nerve of some people admitting openly to using different names. I’ll NEVER admit to it. I don’t care how many times you dunk me in the water….No. NO.! NOOOO. I’ll talk. I’LL TALK! NOT LAKE LANIER. Don’t dunk me in THAT! I’LL TALK!
Just tell me what you want me to say and I’ll say it. Anything. Anything at all. OK.
The EPA is a bunch of whining losers.
There. I said it. Are you happy. NO. What else? No. Not THAT. Ask me to say something easy like Dusty is a maroon but not THAT. NOOOOOOO!
By Dusty
July 14, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this
Now all you liberals listen up. I have been home schooling my brood for years now and I have the bestest, greatest book I will ever need. You know the book I speak of, the Bible. If it is not in there, well, you commies just made it up and you are all going to H-E- double hockeys sticks. If you think it is hot here on Earth, just wait until you feel the fire of damnation.
I like to be creative and interactive with my off spring. I have taught my darlings geography by wearing my muumuus of the great state of Hawaii. I love to be able to multi task by using my backside as the map. That way I can still be in the kitchen with Musty, Crusty, Pledge, Lemon Oil and the youngest Bees Wax. They can be studying away whilst I whip up new and exciting culinary creations. I am truly offended by another bloggers suggestion that I give up spandex. I say if they make it close to my size, I have the God given American right to wear it.
PHd , SheemHd. They are all just Socialist, Commie sympathizers who want to keep my Hummer parked. Cheny is ALL the scientist I will EVER need thank you. And I say if you don’t acknowledge it, it just isn’t so.
I was so pleased to see the likeness of that little “black” man and his Angela Davis wannabe wife on the cover of Time or what ever magazine that was. It serves them all right for portraying my hero, George Herbert Walker Bush, with such large ears in cartoons.
Gotta run all. I am almost out of Little Debbies. It has been so fun conversing with yall this lovely morning.
Have a nice day!
By hillbilly ragger
July 14, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this
erm, Ryno, this was one of the unintentionally-funniest things I’ve read about climate change on the Intertoobz:
I am sure most people would think well it has to be at least 10-20%
Do “most people” really think that? Are you “most people?”
Do you have any idea of what would constitute a toxic time-weighted average level of CO2? Here, have a look.
And please, do go on posting about all this heer scientificalistic stuff.
I need a laugh.
By Bosch
July 14, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
It’s sad that people will use any excuse in the world and deny the obvious in an attempt to tow the party line.
Dusty, The excuse that India and China are doing it too is just so blatantly - um, someone help me out here - that excuse always leaves me at a loss for words.
And can the global warming nay-sayers tell me how our economy will be ruined if we start lowering our CO2 emissions?
Isn’t our economy pretty much in shambles now?
And our beloved President actually made a really tasteless joke about our abysmal pollution record - in public - in front of other world leaders - how embarrassing for us.
I said it earlier, but can we just lock him in a closet so he can’t embarrass us anymore?
By PoFo
July 14, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
Love the way Bookman just couldn’t resist replying to Dusty. Funny, funny stuff.
Funny also how bush balks at global warming so close to the all star game, eh?
That means the national league wins!!
Miss Venezuela. Suddenly this summer slipped into high gear, if’n you know what I intimate to you this day….
By N-GA
July 14, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this
Bosch,
There’s no shortage of published material on climate change and global warming. I suspect that the conclusions of much of that material depends a lot on who funded the scientists who did the research.
Some suggest/claim that man’s damage to the environment will render the argument moot sometime this century, as the damage will be irreversible in that timeframe.
When I discuss the question about how much of the “problem” can be attributed to human behaviors, I try to make the following points:
If we are able to significantly reduce manmade pollutants, wouldn’t that be a good thing for the planet?
If those who deny that man is responsible for a significant part of global warming are wrong, the consequences are dire and everyone suffers. If those who want to enact stricter pollution controls are correct, then we all benefit.
By Taxpayer
July 14, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
In most conservative scientific circles, not much is accomplished. They keep getting hung up in a debate over such things as the definition of a circle. The government tried to help out one time by defining the constant PI as equal to 3. Initially, these scientists of a like, yet pseudo, mind were pleased with government’s willingness to step in and simplify one of life’s complexities. After all, there were no such things as computers and calculators to ease the burdensome and time-consuming calculations required in even the simplest of endeavors. But, it did not take these scientists long to determine that this bold initiative did not truly help to bring closure to their dilemma regarding the circle of scientists or any other circle for that matter. For no matter how hard they tried, they just could not return to their origin. So, after much debate, the conservative scientists returned to their initial argument and to this day they still struggle with that never-changing constant — PI. What is it. I need to know.
By Ryno
July 14, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this
hillbilly, obviously I was exaggerating, however, the outrage of how much CO2 there is, is ridiculous. I told you it was .04% so how am I most people. Please tell me how much CO2 all of nature produces? Why has the earth not warmed since 1998 yet friends of yours like al gore say “it has a fever”. Why do you throw out 30,000 scientists who say it is not true. Why do people call it climate change now?
By Dusty
July 14, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
Well, whatdoya know?ID Thief@1:46
This ignoramus is really long winded. If only he were as cute as he thinks he is. Children will be children and libs will be libs. This one crawled out the woodwork yesterday.
OOps, sorry, Taxpayer, you crawled out the bait bucket several weeks ago.
By GOPs got to go
July 14, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this
Ryno,
Are you sure that those 30,000 scientist you claim dispute global warming aren’t Christian Scientist? Or maybe Scientologist?
By Bubba
July 14, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this
So, if we drill in Alaska then the US government will socialize that oil and we, the American citizen, will have it offered to us at a very reduced rate. Right? Because if that oil is pumped by a private company, won’t that company just set the price at present market value? Boy, that wouldn’t fix anything, would it? Good thing that won’t happen. Good thing the president understands the hard times us working folk are having. Be nice to have good, cheap gas for the holiday season.
By Ryno
July 14, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
No, actually they aren’t it was by Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. It is over 31,000 now with more increasing everyday. Can some lib please answer my question as to why it is called climate change now? I really want to know. Also N-GA yea there actually is a big problem if we allow the government to start regulating everything and it isn’t true, which its not. More government control, what you drive, energy restrictions at your home, increase taxes, a devastating blow to the economy, are all reasons not to allow this.
By Dusty
July 14, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
Bosch,1:57
Do you ever read or listen to the news?
China and India have never signed any environmental treaties. They claim to be “rising industrial nations” that cannot afford the great expenditures that it takes to make industy non polluting. Yet, they are among the leading polluters of the world.
Bush agrees with most scientists that the earth is warming. The question that cannot be answered yet is whether or what degree does the human population have on the warming. It may be cyclical not caused by humans.
Bush sees that an endeavor to greatly increase the cost of energy and endanger the economy of America is not yet based on sound evidence.
You may call that anything you want but it is common sense with an intelligent respnse from Bush. But what do you know about an intelligent response? I haven’t seen one from you yet. Yours is pure party line or “Bush did it!”
By the way, China is taking some temporary measures around Bejing so the Olympics can be seen without smog. Thought you’d like to know.
By NavyWings
July 14, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this
Global warming is about as close to a science as snakeoil salesmen were to health elixirs.
If you can understand it, try http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ and http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf
This is the real science. The science where NO data is thrown out or ignored in favor of a position. The real “wow” moment will come when you can explain why the public should spend an inordinate amount of resources on a perceived problem of 1.5C heating when the northern hemisphere has 11C of seasonal heating every year. So?
Read the links above in their entirety and if you come out still believing in global warming, you’re either too stubborn to admit it’s junk science or you just can’t understand empirical research.
By NavyWings
July 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
Global warming is about as close to a science as snakeoil salesmen were to health elixirs.
If you can understand it, try Junk Science and Forecasting Principles
This is the real science. The science where NO data is thrown out or ignored in favor of a position. The real “wow” moment will come when you can explain why the public should spend an inordinate amount of resources on a perceived problem of 1.5C heating when the northern hemisphere has 11C of seasonal heating every year. So?
Read the links above in their entirety and if you still believe in global warming, you’re either too stubborn to admit it’s junk science or you just can’t understand empirical research.
By RW-(the original)
July 14, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
Since the earth has been going through cycles of warming and cooling for hundreds of millions of years, it’s the height of arrogance to think we caused this particular cycle and as Ryno pointed out there hasn’t been any warming in a decade. It’s also pure ignorance to think we can end a natural cycle. Thank God for that, because if did the next ice age would be a doozy.
By Hillbilly Deluxe
July 14, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman, Thanks for trying to maintain some standards of civility. You sure have your work cut out for you.
If we could get rid of the hot air in Washington DC it might help fight global warming. Those blowhards have to be raising the earth’s temp a degree or two.
By NavyWings
July 14, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this
N-GA,
Concerning your points:
*If we are able to significantly reduce manmade pollutants, wouldn’t that be a good thing for the planet? **Of course it would The cost of doing that should be made as a business case which involves showing proposed alternatives would have a specific effect. Since it is impossible to prove that the perceived average temperature rise is anything more than statistical error, the second proof would be impossible as well.** *If those who deny that man is responsible for a significant part of global warming are wrong, the consequences are dire and everyone suffers. If those who want to enact stricter pollution controls are correct, then we all benefit. **Why are the consequences dire? If the northern hemisphere has a seasonal cyclical temperature rise of 11C why is there rampant concern for a perceived 1.5C rise is an arguable 50 years?**By Bosch
July 14, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
“Bush sees that an endeavor to greatly increase the cost of energy and endanger the economy of America is not yet based on sound evidence”
Endeavor to greatly increase the cost of energy? Um, Dusty, have you gotten gas lately? Have you looked at your electricity and gas bill lately?
And, can you please elaborate on how our economy will be endangered by being good stewards of the planet?
Please give specific examples of how our economy will suffer - you know, any more than it already is.
By NavyWings
July 14, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this
Hey, I’m not afraid of owning up to my posts or who I am. You can see my background on LinkedIn
My credentials are there…
By Midori
July 14, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this
Give her a few minutes to pull something out of her rear, Bosch.
That’s where she stores all of her “facts”, talking points, etc.
If Crusty were a man
By NavyWings
July 14, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this
Hillbilly,
Read the links if you dare.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ and http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf
By Ryno
July 14, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this
Bosch, you just don’t get it do you. Do realize the restrictions and added taxes the governemnt will make to businesses. The cap and trade disaster that would happen would devastate the economy. Restrictions on energy use and added taxes would kill small businesses and kill the productivity of major corporations. A majority of people work for small businesses and they would not be functional with all the new restrictions. Our GDP which is 25% of the worlds would decrease big time.I know you want to be a friend of the porcupine caribou, but the United States economy is a lot more improtant. As much as you want to think we are in a recession. We are not, sorry to say, I know you and obama are on the same page on that.
By Commissary
July 14, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this
NavyWings,
Your monthly order of non-filter Camels is in. Please stop by and pick them up at your earliest convenience. Also, please be advised that we are not allowed to remove the warning labels however you may ignore them if you want. It’s a free country. Besides, other people have told us that they appreciate having the truth finally revealed after the decades of lies from the tobacco companies.
Thank you and have a good day.
By Bosch
July 14, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
Midori,
:-)
By Midori
July 14, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
That is the import of an announcement by Stephen Johnson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Is that the guy who wrote the linked material @ 2:59????
the EPA’s equivalent of “Heckuva job, Brownie”????
By Bosch
July 14, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this
Ryno,
I get alot of things, and one thing I do recognize is wingnut bs.
Your 3:00 post is all wingnut bs, and explains absolutely nothing.
By N-GA
July 14, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this
NavyWings,
Corporations perform similar calculations every day. To whit: “If we design our product so that it only kills X people per year, and the resulting legal costs plus damage awards lowers profit from the sale of the product by Y%, but improving the product safety would reduce our profit by 4Y%, then let’s manufacture and sell the less safe product.”
It’s called a cost-benefit analysis. Corporations are always looking for ways to maximize profit. Rarely do they try to maximize consumer safety.
If those claiming that man has a significant impact on global warming, and if they are correct yet nothing is done about it, then they see drought, crop failure, global hunger, etc. Perhaps they want Armaggedon. My point being that if one side is wrong, so what. If the other side is wrong, there are severe consequences.
By Bosch
July 14, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this
N-GA,
Good points. It’s never a bad idea to try for a cleaner planet!
By Ryno
July 14, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this
Bosch, I am guessing that you really don’t understand business, it is apparent that you don’t understand what increase restrictions and taxes would do to business in this country. It is a waste to explain anything more to you. Go join your friends pelosi and reid and try and increase the liberal agenda. You have brought no facts and nothing to any discussion. You are a typical liberal who uses partial facts, doesnt use all the information at hand, its just love, peace, save the planet. Something that has been here for 4 billion years and will be here for billions more when you and I are long gone.
By Copyleft
July 14, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this
NavyWings: You failed to mention that “JunkScience.com” is a right-wing corporate-advocacy site run by Steven Milloy, corporate lobbyist and Cato Institute member, and is funded by ExxonMobil.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_Milloy http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
Milloy, of course, has also been a prominent denier of the health hazards of asbestos, DDT, and nicotine, not to mention being a staunch denier of evolution.
In other words, Milloy’s “science” is about as credible as Fox’s “news.”
By hillbilly ragger
July 14, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this
Good lord, NavyWings, are you really so insecure that you have to dare people to look at wingnut links?
You really think I’m going to take the word of something called “junkscience.com” over the IPCC, the National Research Council, the World Meteorological Organization, and dozens of other legitimate organizations because… you dared me?
And in all your studies, has nobody bothered to explain the difference between “seasonal” and “climatic”?
And Ryno, that OISM guy’s petition you keep citing? You know, the “32,000 scientists” guy? Hate to break it to ya, but it’s not real impressive. If I were to canvas over half a million people over the past ten years, I’d hope I could get at least half a percent or so to reply if I asked real nice.
By Taxpayer
July 14, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this
I read something depressing the other day. According to the latest calculations by the EPA, a human (in the US, that is) is worth a million dollars less now than five years ago. I said LESS. I wonder how many bloggers here understand the significance of that. Isn’t that sad. Anyway, I could name some folks myself that I also value less today than say about eight years ago.
By Bosch
July 14, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
Ryno,
You know absolutely nothing about me, but as usual, make assumptions.
I understand business just fine - I’m no business analyst or nothing, but I understand that with anything, you have to base what you consider facts on something real - or rather what a majority of people consider real, and your 3:00 post was typical wingnut hysteria that explained absolutely nothing.
You are making predictions based on what? Your opinion, nothing else.
In the same token, a mile-wide meteor could fall on the planet, and that would be bad for the economy as well.
One of the reasons I haven’t added anything to the discussion is because I feel that N-GA is doing a good job of explaining my position as well. He’s smarter than me and writes better.
By Ryno@yahoo.com
July 14, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
Copyleft, first there are numerous presentations by scientists who disagree with it. Just do a little research. Also how can you possibly bash Fox News. Even hillary clinton’s campaign said it was the most fair and balanced news network.You just keep watching MSNBC and CNN though and watch the VOTE OBAMA HE IS THE MESSIAH channels. As for hillbilly, please please. I just want the answer to one question, why is it called climate change now? In the 70s it was global cooling and it used to be all global warming. Now climate change? Why would that be?
By Dusty
July 14, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this
Bosch,2:49
You seem to know so little about what is going on and you want somebody else to give you the facts.
In reference to installing the greater anti-pollution measures in America’s industry, automotive and mechanical; try this one.
Julia Malone of Cox News Service reports that EPA has estimated the the implemental cost (of stricter air standards) would cost between ten and twenty billion a year.*
More than a dozen governors have joined six senators in Congress who have said tighter regulations could trigger layoffs, futher erode US competetive competition and cause upward pressure on consumer inflation.
There are more sources of information but maybe you should find a few yourself since you are so sure of your one line liberal bs thinking.
By Taxpayer
July 14, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this
The good news though about the EPA — they also place the highest value on US human life of all the US government organizations. Isn’t that comforting?
By N-GA
July 14, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
12 governors out of 50?
6 Senators out of 100?
Your numbers are impressive!
BTW, I suspect that CREATING A NEW 10-20 BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY would suck. Of course corporate America would probably offshore those new jobs rather than keep them here.
By hillbilly ragger
July 14, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
Well Ryno, since you asked I’ll answer. It’s usually referred to as “climate change” because man-made changes in greenhouse gases can affect a whole lot of things. You shift (say) ocean temps, which messes around with the jet stream, to the extent that (say) the UK isn’t benefiting from it, and the UK freezes. So it won’t be warmer there.
As for why “in the 70s it was global cooling”, I’m not sure why you’re asking me to discuss something I’ve not brought up. If you’re curious though, why don’t you google “nuclear winter” and learn something about why that was serious concern (and, I guess, still is if we do have to deal with an nuclear Armageddon…)
By Dusty
July 14, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
Navy Wings,
You have probably noticed by now that liberals here tend to stretch, lie, twist, deny, steal IDs, use expletives and ignore the truth. Not all, but most.
I hope you stay because I don’t believe you have the above charcteristics. Not for a minute.
By Believer
July 14, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this
We need to just get government out of our lives. They have not done anything worth speaking of. We need to go back to a day when government knew its place and stayed out of our face. A simpler time. A time before warning labels on cigarettes that never hurt a soul or face masks for coal miners. A time before Geiger counters. What are they good for anyway except causing trouble. Why, we wouldn’t even be having any problems with North Korea or Iran or Pakistan or hardly anyone if it weren’t for those dang Geiger counters. It’s just another example of government interfering.
By Bosch
July 14, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
N-GA,
You’re my hero today.
You might want to also factor in increased health costs to treat the population as lower environmental standards make us sicker.
Dusty,
Yes, those things COULD happen, just like a snake COULD possibly somehow get into your plumbing and get into your toilet.
The thing about all of this is that you don’t know anymore than I do. But like N-GA said earlier, what if YOU are wrong?
By N-GA
July 14, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this
Believer (3:59),
You really had me going with those first 4 sentences.
By Dusty
July 14, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
No, North Georgia, everything is not rotten in the USA.
That 10 to 20 billion dollars would be added to other industry costs, not necessarily creating a new industy. We already have many clean air modifications and cleaner air. Also in the cost would be the riddance or modification of all imported machinary and equipment from countries that do not have our current regulations. HOw would you suggest we rid ourselve from the drifting smog from China and India?
I assume you don’t mind paying your share of twenty billion to save the planet when it isn’t even lost.
Congress does have a few more items to study besides environmental protection. Have you ever heard of a committee? Everybody does not talk about everything at once.
Or maybe they do since Democrats took over Congress. Approval now is 9%? That’s the kind of ‘change’ Democrats bring.
By Taxpayer
July 14, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
Don’t believe her NavyWings. Dusty is not a liberal. I am. Now, do you understand.
By Ryno
July 14, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
hillbilly, no climate change came about because global warming is no longer an option and people know it. How can you say the planet is warming when it hasn’t for 1998. In the 1970s, people were concerned about our nations industries causing global cooling. CO2 would cause an ice age. Surprising the solar activity was weak during this time period. Then in the 90s it started to warm and all of a sudden our CO2 activity led to global warming. Surprising solar activity was stronger during this time period. Al Gore says the planet has a “fever”. Now as solar cycle 24 is coming along and there has been a delay of sun spots it seems that we are set for another cool down. Now it is called climate change. This terminology allows for any change in the weather to be called climate change. I thought that our CO2 use led to temperature increase, isn’t that what has been presented by your St. Gore?
By Dusty
July 14, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this
Bosch,4:01
Bad analogy from you. I am quoting investigative journalists, senators and governors. I do believe they are more informed than N-GA and certainly more than Bosch.
How are your intergalactial characters these days? You DO seem to know a lot about them. That’s SOMETHING!
By N-GA
July 14, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
The few clean air regulations we have are in spite of you and those like you. Usually the GOP comes in and reverses any legislative progress made (cancels and/or defers pollution requirements of utilities, and/or mileage requirements of automobile manufacturers).
These same arguments about cost have been made about virtually all related safety legislation from seat belts to air bags, from product labeling to fireproofing childrens’ clothing. None of these things would have been done willingly by big business.
By Bosch
July 14, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
You are quoting investigative journalists, senators, and governors who have agendas.
Gotta go pick up my daughter. Pleasant evening all.
By Dusty
July 14, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this
Taxpayer.4:09..Duh!
I have NEVER said I was a liberal and have no desire to be one. This blog is led by a liberal journalist but open to everyone.
By N-GA
July 14, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this
I hope it was Schlitz
By Believer
July 14, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this
Thank you N-Ga. I try but it is hard some times to get noticed so I succumb from time to time to using some of those tricks used by those politicians and used car salesmen, for example. The old bait-and-switch always snares a few at least for a moment. Then, it’s up to me to keep them interested, you know. The old foot in the door thing is good for an opener. Can I interest you in the latest break-through in CO2 scrubbers. Through the miracles of modern science, this invention is the hottest thing since apple pie. It uses a proprietary material to simulate the actions of nature’s very own deciduous majestic wonders — trees, that is. Yes Sirreee. And it can be yours for the low low…..Ouch that’s my foot. Why, I never…Well, here we go again. Knock, knock.
By theScientist
July 14, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this
Yes Jay, a science degree is among those that hang from my wall. But of course, it was way back in biology 101 that we learned the earth, with the exception of a brief cooling period called the Dark Ages, has been warming for the last 400,000 years. That’s why there’s grass under them there melting glaciers, remember?
So.., is man causing global warming, absolutely not since man hasn’t even been around for 400,000 yrs. Is man contributing to the increased CO2 levels, obviously yes we must be having some impact. Will an end to man’s CO2 contribution stop global warming, absolutely not see #1.
No.., the real question here is. Can we slow our CO2 contribution down enough to get global warmning back to its natural warming speed without causing more harm than good to ourselves? And when we all get to this same place, real progress can be made..
By Taxpayer
July 14, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
Duh. I did not expect you to get it. It was meant as a test for NavyWings. Of course, if your were NavyWings…
By Dusty
July 14, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
Ok..last post here to N-GA
The Clean Air Act was amended in 1990.There have been many revisions since then everything from motor vehicle emissions to stratosphere Ozone Pretection.
To suggest that the US has done nothing to ‘clean’ air is rediculous. As always, you simply wish to run down America while Bush is President. LIberals need to clean their personal air and think clearer.
By Dusty
July 14, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this
Taxpayer…Duh again..
I know. You were being cute. But..to offset your insinuation..I post only under my own ID. And you???
By demwit
July 14, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this
..who oddly shares an IP address with Rightytighty and Reality King?
Seeing as to how liberals are so easily mis led and all.., I didn’t think I should use a different IP address with each ego, super-ego and id blogality. Can’t believe Jay, of all people, would out me..
By N-GA
July 14, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this
Darn Dusty,
I’ve read and re-read my posts snd cannot find anywhere where I suggested that the US hasn’t done anything to “clean” the air. You should go back and re-take “Reading Comprehension”.
I think that you post whatever pops into your head…no edits, no filters. Like they say: Garbage in, garbage out.
And BTW, the “Clean Air Act” is an oxymoron.
By Taxpayer
July 14, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this
I find the use of multiple IP addresses to be, for the average person, a moving experience.
By N-GA
July 14, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this
A recent example of White House interference in EPA efforts to improve our environment
By James Bradley
July 14, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this
Man IS causing global warming, the Earth is in a lot of trouble, in the 1970’s scientists said we were going to have an ice age by now, the sun revolves around the earth, CO2 is a pollutant (that we exhale), the moon landings were fake, the world is flat.
The JOKE IS ON YOU. Mars is warmer, there are no men there. Plants absorb CO2, which makes more plants. Mass Hysteria! Earth was warmer in the 19th centrury - pre industrial!! Biggest hoax ever.
By JAY BOOKMAN
July 14, 2008 6:08 PM | Link to this
Uber, that post has been pulled … not good.
By TV Junkie
July 14, 2008 6:12 PM | Link to this
A few observations: 1. Libs are very quick to jump all over GWB for the current economic situation, while at the same time totally embracing the alleged global theory. Don’t you know that if all of the “solutions” that Big Al & his minions are proposing were put it place, it would make today look like economic good times? 2. The weather folks will not ever give us more that a 10 day forecast, and anything past 3 days is subject to change. So, how does anyone think that anyone knows what the weather will be 50 to 100 years from now? 3. If it’s really all that serious a problem, why do we still have NASCAR? And, why are all of those baseball, football, basketball, etc teams jetting all over the country - not to mention all of those recording artists on tour? It seems like certain industries (that libs do not like) are targeted for modifications - like cap & trade, while others, such as the entertainment industry (that we like, but really do not need) are given a pass.
By RealityKing
July 14, 2008 6:13 PM | Link to this
During the recent congressional hearings on global warming, the head UN environmental “scientist” was asked what impact the Kyoto treaty would have had if it have been followed by the US and the 15 other countries that did sign but didn’t hold to it.
The answer: .07 F less by 2050.
Now compare that miniscual amount to the economic pain, mostly on the poor, it would have caused..
PS.., your going to have to start writting these IPa’s down if you want to keep track of me now..
By TV Junkie
July 14, 2008 6:23 PM | Link to this
Sorry, it should read alleged global warming theory…
By Taxpayer
July 14, 2008 6:43 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
In order to offset my insinuation, you will need to fork over 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 carbon credits, minimum. That’s molecular carbon. Don’t try to pass off that atomic-scale junk of yours on me. Also, in order to minimize storage space, please provide me with the molecular carbon in the most compact structure possible.
Thank you and have a nice day.
P.S. As I stated earlier, I will never give up my secret identity, or is it identities. Maybe Sybil knows. NEVER. Unless I want to. Sometimes I want to and I do. Like the other day, I outed one of myselves. I’ve even outed one of myselves just for you before but you probably forgot.
By Bud Wiser
July 14, 2008 7:47 PM | Link to this
I just saw on the evening news now where ‘global warming’ will cause more kidney stones. KIDNEY STONES!!
Al Gore and all of his mind-numbed morons have issued the world a death sentence. We are all going to die.
The absurdity of this non-issue generated by failed socialists has reached new lows.
By Hillbilly Deluxe
July 14, 2008 8:24 PM | Link to this
Having had a kidney stone that had to be surgically removed I’m totally opposed to anything that causes kidney stones. If there is anything that hurts worse, I want no part of it.
I see on TV that T Boone Pickens has the answer to our energy problems he’s gonna let us in on in a few weeks. If you got the answer T, why wait a few weeks to tell us? Time is a wastin’. I’d also be curious to know if he has ownership or investment in any of the technologies he’s pushing. That’s not an ideological or political thing I’m just naturally cynical and suspicious about everything. I”m not a beer drinker so I have no dog in the AB fight. It will be like all takeovers though. The company taking them over will be so heavily leveraged that they will start to cut, cut, cut. Jobs will be lost. The company won’t be able to grow so it will contract. Another big American company will go down the drain.
By hillbilly ragger
July 15, 2008 6:27 AM | Link to this
So to sum:
Right wingers refuse to believe that human beings influence climate change, and willfully ignore the findings of actual scientists who’ve devoted their life’s work to such studies and depend, instead, on the work of those who’ve been paid to find different results.
There’s a shocker, huh?