House Passes Landmark Climate Bill

Before I head into the mtns. in smoggy Osaka prefecture…
~
“The difference here, though, is business is split on this bill with utilities, including the Edison Election Institute, Wall Street, clean coal groups and retailers such as Nike and Starbucks supporting the bill and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and petroleum groups opposing it.”
~
Plus what all the pols say, plus what our MSM says? Would it be asking too much to tell us what the scientists/environmental groups say? I know, I know which groups like it and which don’t, but shouldn’t they have a central voice in assessing the bill’s strengths/weaknesses?

.
Hi JNS, thanks for answering me on the earlier thread. I guess my concern is not that the Climate change bill won’t be changed, but that it won’t be changed to be significantly better than it is now.
.
In other words, the most liberal, best version of something like climate change, or health care, is going to come out of the House. The Senate is going to reflect the corporate interests, thanks to the veto power that has been given to the republicans and the DINOs. And then there’ll be the conference committee, which may change things, but I doubt significantly for the better.
.
Here’s a Digby post on the climate change bill.
.
Here’s an AP story about health care, and the process.
~

Thanks for staying on this story, JNS. I too would love to see more of the policy weeds – what does this policy actually do according to climatologists and economists – but today was about the sausage-mak…I mean process. Good reporting; good blogging.

By the way. I was watching the vote as it went down and there was one Dem who voted for it and then at the last minute when it was apparent that it would pass they switched to nay. I would LOVE to know who that spineless coward was.
.
And truthfully while there weren’t many, there were a few Dems who got up and gave some rousing speeches in support of the legislation before hand. Its worth trying to look for them on youtube or on cspan’s website.

It is amazing what spineless cowards the Democrats are. Or if they aren’t cowards then they are in the pockets of the corporations. Unfortunately Ken Spain is right. No way the Senate passes this, or health care. Conrad, Baucus, Reid, and Feinstein were bought a long time ago. The insurance industry has the receipts framed on their walls of their office.
.
How badly have the Dems capitulated to the oil, coal, and insurance industries? It is so bad that Maria Cantwell, Senator from Washington c/o Premera, has said she supports the “co-op” idea. Cantwell represents Washington State. The bulk of the state’s population resides between Bellingham and Olympia, and it is full of Democrats. Despite this she doesn’t represent her state, she represents the Insurance industry.
,
The only think I take comfort in is that I’ve never voted for her, and I’ve given money to her primary opponents. We Democrats in Washington State need to get busy recruiting someone – anyone – to represent us.

For once the Republicans have a legitimate beef about the process. I can’t understand why the House leadership would give them this point by presenting a 300-page amendment late last night.

Count on the Republicans to overplay their new hand, however, using the process issue as a distraction from the substance of the bill. It might actually be a good piece of legislation, and we need a good climate control bill, but it’ll be a while before we hear much serious discusion about the merits as the opponents – echoed by the media hungry for friction – go on and on about the late amendment.

Steve Benen has a couple of really smart posts on this. The first is on the process: COMING UP ACES. The second is on the DENIERS. And I have a diverse collection of blog posts over at my place: Cap & Trade & Stoopid Wingnuts Fainting.
.
And Yglesias noted something critical for those (including me) who understand that this is a flawed and insufficient bill:
.
I’ve heard some clever people who don’t want to be silly denialists about the threat of climate change, and who don’t want to be silly alarmists about the threat of Waxman-Markey, but who don’t have a self-conception as belonging to the same political coalition as Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi attempt to argue that the answer is “decrease.” But I’ve never heard any of the people actually charged with the international negotiations say that. As best I can tell, everyone involved with the Copenhagen process, everyone involved with the U.N., and all the climate negotiators from the major European countries are hoping for something like this bill to pass in order to give the international diplomatic process additional momentum.

I figured you guys would get a kick out of this story of a cowardly Democratic Congressman who literally cast a no vote and ran away and hid. You can’t make this kind of stuff up.
.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0609/Where_in_the_world_is_Ciro_Rodriguez.html

This is your discourse:
.
“Perhaps it was an omen, or perhaps a sign of global warming, but as the gavel came down a thunderstorm that had been threatening all day erupted violently over the Capitol.”
.
“Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus…. And who’s going to be hurt most [by ACES] the poor, the people on limited income…the people who can least afford to have their energy taxes raised by MIT says $3,100 per family…. This bill must be defeated. We need to be good stewards of our environment, but this is not it, it’s a hoax!”
.

“Democratic Congressman who literally cast a no vote and ran away and hid. You can’t make this kind of stuff up.”
.
Jelly fish are more solid than some of the clowns in the democratic party. Time to start making these people pay a price. I care less about him voting no. I care more about him being a friggin coward.

gysgt said:
.
I care less about him voting no. I care more about him being a friggin coward.
.
A FRIKKIN MEN
.
I said the exact same thing on my blog. Who wants to vote for a guy or woman who is such a wuss that they can’t cast a vote and take the heat for it. Hell if thats your vote, running away won’t change it. And whatever reprecussions you were going to get for the vote before you hauled ass you will still get after they catch up to you.
.
Ridiculous.

CLEAN COAL groups?
.
Not “hypothetically” clean coal groups?
.
Not “supposedly” clean coal groups?
.
Not “deliberately misleading” clean coal groups?
.
Not even “clean” coal groups?
.
Ye ought not t’ be promotin’ th’ industry lies, lass!

I wonder if Joe Klein still thinks Mark Sanford is “almost admirable”.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us/27jenny.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=todayspaper
.

Through a spokeswoman, Mrs. Sanford declined requests to be interviewed for this article, but told The Associated Press she learned of her husband’s affair early this year when she found a letter he had written. She told him to end the relationship, but he repeatedly asked permission to visit the woman in Argentina in the months that followed.
.

“I said absolutely not,” Mrs. Sanford told The A.P. “It’s one thing to forgive adultery. It’s another to condone it.”
.
Then, last week, when the governor told her he needed time alone to write, she had specifically warned him not to see his mistress. She said she was devastated when he went to meet her in Argentina.

.
Anybody who believes he went there to break it of or that he would have come clean had he not been caught at the airport is smoking something.

sg:
.
You did hear, I’m sure, that Rush Limbaugh blames Obama for Sanfords’ indiscretions by forcing him to take the stimulus money:

.
What a laugh! Never mind that Obama can only sign the bill, no one can force a state to take it.
.
It was his own stinkin’ South Carolina congress that made him do it, not the divil!

It was his own stinkin’ Republican led South Carolina congress that made him do it, not the divil!

.
fixt

Without speaking to the veracity of climate-change concerns, does no one find it in the least bit interesting that the industries that stand to gain the most from carbon-regulation are those with the closest working relationships with Congress on the matter? We are rightly skeptical of war when advocated by the weapons-manufactures, we are rightly skeptical of the necessity of drug-prescriptions when championed through the AMA by pharmaceutical companies, and we are suspicious of claims against health-care reform by the health-insurance industry. These are logical hesitations on our part that warrant skepticism. Why, then, is there so little talk of what the WSJ refers to as the “Climate-Industrial Complex”?

My position re: Climate Change is probably a little bit outside the mainstream.
There’s no doubt in my mind that human-caused climate change is a real phenomenon with real consequences. I simply doubt that there’s a d@nm thing we can do about it. We blew our chance in 1974…

Why, then, is there so little talk of what the WSJ refers to as the “Climate-Industrial Complex”?
.
Man, what the f–k are you talking about?

exile – go F yerself!
.
YARR!

Cliff…
.
exile/neo be th’ newer, smarter, more spidery-invitation-inta-th’ tangled web version o’ spongy.
.
No matter wha’ anyone be sayin’ exile be spinnin’ an’ spinnin’ an’ spinnin’ ‘is troll-y little web.
.
Don’t be touchin’ ‘im!
.
Arrgh!

Cliff –
.
Per’aps “more devious an’ cunnin’” would be a fairer representation, based on ‘is success a lurin’ folks inta ‘is web so’s ‘e could be wrappin’ ‘em up in ‘is silky poisonous bonds in th’ hate crimes thread.
.
Arrgh!

Exiled:
.
CO2 is an efficient greenhouse gas no matter who is in a “complex”, politically.
.
If anything, it’s good that there is at least some political force to counter the opposition. I’m sure that in reality, there is a “Peace-industrial Complex” too.
.
I’ll pick ‘em over our other, more traditional choices.
.
PD:
.
You might be right, you might be wrong, maybe the actual trigger point was passed a hundred years ago. It’s possible. After all, it will take a minimum of 100,000 to 200,000 years to naturally cycle out the existing CO2 rise.
.
No one can model the tripwire closely enough to know where it is with that sort of resolution, which leaves your opinion just as good as anyone else’s.
.
I believe in erring on the safe side, but who knows, maybe the trigger is 100 years in the future…

.
Pirate Wench, I have seen no evidence of this “smarter” that you mention.
~

Pirate Wench – there’s been several times, usually after a strong dose of rusty or spob or hula, where people have asked why we can’t get reasonable conservatives in here.
.
Exiled/neo strikes me as being a mostly reasonable person. We disagree with him, but he’s not batsh*t insane like rusty, and he doesn’t descend into saying “Nuh-uh! Nuh-uh!” over and over like spob.
.
So, I’m going to engage him on some things.

And wvng – thanks for those links.

Cliff-
I’m confused as to what your exclamation suggests. Is it that you deny that those who stand to make massive profits from carbon-regulation and alternative energy sources are the loudest and most alarmist voices on climate-change? Or, is it simply that you feel the “Climate-Industrial Complex” is irrelevant to the veracity of man induced climate-change.
~
As for the notion of a Climate-Industrial Complex itself, here are some examples. Vestast, the leading manufacturer of wind-turbines, is a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council and a sponsor of CNN’s “Climate in Peril.” Is there not a major self-interest for Vestast to perpetuate the notion that climate peril is imminent and thus we should tap into wind-turbine energy? Should this not cause Vestast’s claims to be viewed with skepticism? According to the WSJ, “U.S. companies and interest groups involved with climate change hired 2,430 lobbyists just last year, up 300% from five years ago. Fifty of the biggest U.S. electric utilities — including Duke — spent $51 million on lobbyists in just six months.” Duke Energy is also a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council and advocates for US cap-and-trade policies. Yet, Duke opposed the Warner-Lieberman bill, which proposed such a policy, because it failed to include hand-outs to the coal industry. Duke, a vocal advocate on climate change, is motivated solely out of a desire for profits. Just as the pharmaceutical industry, or health-insurance, or weapons manufacturers, we should view claims made by those who would benefit from climate-change legislation with extreme skepticism.
~
Pirate
I see you’re continuing your egregious attempts to silence dissent. Why is it that because I disagree with you I am being ‘devious?’ Why is everyone else allowed to make observations, but when I do you cry foul. You are irrational and tyrannical to the extreme.

.
Cliff, do you think a WSJ editorial on climate change could have credibility?
.
Here’s the WSJ editorial: Mr. Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus, a think tank, and author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming” (Knopf, 2007).
.
Here’s sourcewatch: Australian National University academic, John Quiggin, writing in the Australian Financial Review in March 2002, pointed out the number of refereed publications Lomborg has produced on statistical or other scientific analysis of environmental issues “is zero”.
.
The concern over Lomborg’s misrepresentation of the science was so great that three complaints were lodged with the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty, which Lomborg describes as “a national review body, with considerable authority”. [8]
.
The committee found “the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice”. [9] They stated “there has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty … have been met”.
.
Back to the WSJ editorial:
.
Spain has been proclaimed a global example in providing financial aid to renewable energy companies to create green jobs. But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created.
.
That sounds familiar! Cue George Will:
.
The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating “green jobs” in “alternative energy” even though Spain’s unemployment rate is 18.1 percent — more than double the European Union average — partly because of spending on such jobs?
.
It is true that Calzada has come to conclusions that he, as a libertarian, finds ideologically congenial. And his study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech).
.
The WaPo must be cracking down on poor George, making him print a disclosure. In any case, here’s Gabriel Calzada, per the NRDC.
.
Yet these energy industry funded hacks have the nerve to warn about the “Climate-Industrial Complex”.
~

Neo – To be honest, I couldn’t care less about your so-called “Climate-Industrial Complex.”
.
Business Looking to Make Profit is right up there with Dog Bites Man and Michelle Bachmann Says Something Stupid in the list of “really? No sh*t!” headlines.
.
I care more about the science, which undeniably indicates that climate change will have a detrimental impact on America in the near future. I also care about the diminishing resources, the coming (or already arrived) Hubbert Peak, and the massive potential of renewable and clean energies.
.
In other words, if something makes sense, why fly in the face of it?
.
And for a conservative to complain about an ANYTHING-Industrial Complex makes me laugh . . . why not just dump your Exxon stock and invest in Vestast? Even without government intervention, the market is driving towards renewable energy and clean tech: be a capitalist! Jump on the bandwagon!

Thunder-
So, by your argument I gather that given Lomborg’s “questionable” scientific accuracy on climate-change, he should consequently be discredited on his analysis of corporate, profit-driven entanglement in the climate-change arena, which is an entirely unscientific realm?

Exiled: Please provide some links.
.
I don’t doubt that there are companies lining up at the “green jobs trough,” licking their lips and scraping their silverware together.
.
But I protest the term “Climate-Industrial Complex” without more solid proof.
.
I also protest it because of the massive amounts of oil money given to Congress:
Cornyn, John R TX $1,416,575 (2000-2007)
Corker, Bob R TN $274,600 (2000-2007)
Thune, John R SD $407,450 (2000-2007)
.
http://oilmoney.priceofoil.org/voteTables.php
.
And so on and so forth.

Vast-
Ah, yes, I am conservative, thus I am a money-hungry capitalist pig with overflowing investments who always chooses corporate interests over American interests.
~
I may have to re-evaluate my raw hatred for the pharmaceutical industry and their zombie-nation intentions for America, given this most recent revelation on where I am supposed to stand on that issue, as a conservative. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Neo – You misunderstand: I’m not saying you’re a money-hungry anything, I’m saying “if it’s good for the country (and clean air and renewable energy are), and if it can be good for business, and it’s the way things are headed anyway, for any number of reasons, why fight it?”
.
“On resiste a l’invasion des armees; on ne resiste pas a l’invasion des idees.” – Victor Hugo

.
Wonderful!
.

Exiled_At_Home (formerly neo) Says:
Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 3:50 pm
.
Thunder-
So, by your argument I gather that given Lomborg’s “questionable” scientific accuracy on climate-change, he should consequently be discredited on his analysis of corporate, profit-driven entanglement in the climate-change arena, which is an entirely unscientific realm?

.
I’m saving this post. It’s a perfect example of wingnut projection and illogic. Pirate wench is right (also, I was right before she was right).
.
P.S. Mr. Lomborg knows plenty about corporate, profit-driven entanglement, as do the sources he cites. That is how they earn a living. But you didn’t read the links, did you, neo.
~

Thunder-
You’re absurd if you think that you’ve in anyway demonstrated anything other than your intense paranoia of any conservative. Lomborg’s personal ties to specific industries in no way makes his assertions that there is a growing corporate-driven link to climate change any less true.

Exiled_At_Home (formerly neo) Says:
Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I am a money-hungry capitalist pig who always chooses corporate interests over American interests.

You missed out: bigot, homophobe, and troll, but otherwise that was a pretty accurate summary of your intellectual engagement with people here. Maybe Zechman’s dialectic has had some beneficial effect.

Righto, JR.

“Ah, yes, I am conservative, thus I am a money-hungry capitalist pig with overflowing investments who always chooses corporate interests over American interests.”
~
Actually, I’d say that’s a wonderful description of the WSJ right there. Nimrod, satisfied that his homophobia thread was ever so popular, attempts to insert his reactionary nuttery here.
~
Again, if we choose to take that bait, and god knows his brand of crazy (flat-earthery) is espec. alluring, we forget about the centrist senate dems who are actually relevant to the debate.

.
Jcapan, in my defense, I was doing the laundry and the weather outside is nasty, hot, and humid. So it wasn’t merely a case of this.
.
Also, I made it into a blog post, so there’s that. Blog post is enhanced by alt text (actually title= text).
~

The earth worshipping, leftist useful idiots writing for Time magazine today should read what their identically like-minded useful idiots wrote for Time magazine on June 24, 1974:

-

“As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”

-

“Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.”

ifthethunderdontgetya –
.
thanks fer th’ back-up (pre-up?) me hearty!
.
I be havin’ unpleasant long experience recognizin’ manipulative evil – me eye be honed fine fer it.
.
Under th’ guise o’ not “understandin’”, an’ bein’ “”confused”, an’ “clarifyin’” or needin’ “clarifyin’”, neoexile be a troll through an’ through – he just beth’ wee-est mi’ better a’ disguisin’ it, tha’ be all.
.
I be sone sayin’ me piece, now, engage away me buckos, bu’ I be reservin’ th’ ri’ t’ call “go f yerself” at it when I be seein’ it.
.
ARRGH!

texty –
.
ahhhhh…ri’ on cue!
.
Go f yerself!
.
YARR!

JC
~
Please. While I disagree with you on just about everything other than Palestine, I have not insulted your rationale or your view-points, other than your disgraceful comments on Catholicism. I would ask that you refrain from your childish insults of me, my intellect, and my philosophies. Thanks ever so much.
~
Pace amico mio…

“… all they did today was give us a bunch of 30-second ads” -Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.
.
That’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? Screw trying to make effective laws, there’s an election in 2010. You tool.

textee has done dood the same old sin, and that is mistaking weather for climate…

I am still mystified why the existance of a “Clamate-industrial complex” is all that bad, given that businesses of every sort will line up behind the beneficiaries that will bring them the most bang for their buck.
.
No one doubts the Resistance of the military-industiral complex, or the pharmaceutical-health insurance complex or any other, so why is it necessarily bad that a “complex” appears in the interest of those who are arguing that global warming is taking place?
.
The point is, that there is very little doubt in the scientific community about whether it is taking place or not, and it is going to be a very real problem in our children’s futures.
.
The scientists have had to deal with the ignorant naysayers* for quite a while now, and it is time some political clout line up behind them.
.
*The debate in the scientific community has ended quite a while ago, there are few or no climatologists or paleoclimatologists left that don’t ascribe to the view that we are entering a period of increased warming.

Oops! “Clamate-industrial” sounds a bit too close to the clamato crowd, my apologies!
.
“Climate-industrial complex”

.
I prefer V-8 in my bloody marys.
~

The argument that imminent climate-change peril exists because the debate is over is nonsense. The debate is not over, far from it.
~
Consensus in science is a fallacy. There is never full consensus and anyone claiming so appears to have something to hide lest continued research proves his views incorrect.
~
According to a Daily Tech article in August 2007: Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers ‘implicit’ endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no ‘consensus.
~
A December 2008 U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Minority Staff Report contains statements from over 400 international scientists who reject the ‘consensus’ view-point that irreversible man-made global warming exists. This is clear indication that there simply is no consensus and the debate will, and should, continue.
~
I am not prepared to reach a decision as to the veracity of the Global Warming theory. I personally do not have the expertise to make such an informed judgment. However, I see no harm in furthering research on the matter and I certainly reject any notion that there is any sort of concrete agreement among scientists on the matter. Let the research and debate continue.
~
“Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.”
–Andre Gide

thunder and neo>

“So, by your argument I gather that given Lomborg’s “questionable” scientific accuracy on climate-change, he should consequently be discredited on his analysis of corporate, profit-driven entanglement in the climate-change arena, which is an entirely unscientific realm?”

Just taking this quote for example. As a longtime lurker here (much more interesting discussions than the actual articles on the site) this finally made me register.

I’m from Denmark and Mr. Lomborg is out greatest national embarrassment. It is highly unfortunate that international media picked up on him as a spokesperson for the climate-skeptic viewpoint.

To understand Mr. Lomborg its important to understand that he is an intelligent man – and definitely not a loony-toon (although he IS a media-whore). He IS, however, an economist. He is not a scientist, he is not an environmentalist, he is not even a politician. He is SOLELY an aconomist – who unfortunately try to apply his field of expertise to a totally different field.

So everything and anything he says about climate and the environment is seen through one lens only – and that is the economic one. He will completely ignore any long-term impact climate-change will have and focus only on narrow calculations of what kind of investment will do the most measurable “good” by his standards. Aside from the fact that this obviously relies heavily on his own subjective values, this leaves him totally and completely blind to any argument that cannot be exactly quantified into $$$ spent or saved.

We’ve seen where listening to his kind have brought us economically – so why anyone think he is credible on climate is beyond my understanding. But I guess his views are very useful to the lunatic fringe in the US too.

I see that getting used to the (lack of) layout on this blog will be a bit of challenge. I now understand all the ~,. etc. signs you use to separate your paragraphs. Ugh….

.
Welcome to Swampland, repzak.
.
Practice makes perfect!
~

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023915.php

enjoy

Repzak-
~
Thanks for your insight in the discussion.
~
I would just like to clarify, in case their was a misunderstanding, that I did not cite Lomborg for any attempted re-buttal against climate-change itself, merely to note the deep web of corporate entanglement involved, which should lead to a skeptical view of the profit-driven alarmists view. This is not to say that climate-change is not real, but that the most extreme interpretation of it stems from those who would attempt to use the theory for their own profit-driven motives.

exiled:
.
I’m part of that scientific community. I know.
.
I quote bolded your own statement:
.
“Minority Staff Report contains statements from over 400 international scientists who reject the ‘consensus’ view-point that irreversible man-made global warming exists. This is clear indication that there simply is no consensus and the debate will, and should, continue.
.
I hand you Wikipedia, not for the content, but for the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
.
Read this line, exiled. Read it twice:
.
“Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.”
.
Exiled, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions, but in this one, you are deliberately disrepresenting what is going on in the scientific community.

Exiled:
.
Yet another shot at you for this:
.
You quoted the minority opinion of Republicans in the 2008 congress!
.
These people, whatever their political leanings, are not scientists and know virtually nothing about the subject.
.
I suggest stronly that you restate that as only your opinion to separate it from actual fact!

“This is not to say that climate-change is not real, but that the most extreme interpretation of it stems from those who would attempt to use the theory for their own profit-driven motives.
.
And, exiled, I’ll attack you again on this:
.
Are leading everyone to believe that the political/economic forces lining up behind global warming to be more extreme, then, than the political/economic forces that have not only disinformed Americans about the “debate”* in the scientific community for their own ends, but are opposing needed changes on purely ideological grounds.
.
So a gathering force behind the realities of global warming are somehow extreme when they are nothing more than a response, and an easily predictable response, to the anti-global-warming industrial/GOP complex?
.
Tell me it ain’t so, then, tell me just how you can swing that argument!
.
*The current state of the debate is currently similar to that concerning the KT mass extinction after the discovery of the Chicxulub impact crater. In other words, except for stragglers, it’s pretty much over!

53_3
~
First, do not make baseless accusations as to my “deliberate disrepresenting” of the scientific community. I am doing no such thing. If it is in fact a misrepresentation, which I do not believe it is, it is certainly not deliberate.
~
“Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organizations hold non-committal positions.” This is, in fact, a misrepresentation in that the board members of these scientific bodies support the Global Warming theory, while each of these bodies has numerous dissenting scientific members who do not comprise the board decision-making apparatus.
~
“You quoted the minority opinion of Republicans in the 2008 congress!
.
These people, whatever their political leanings, are not scientists and know virtually nothing about the subject.”
.
This is patently false. The report I cited is not the direct opinion of Congressional Republicans. It was a report complied by Congressional Republicans citing hundreds of views from the scientific community, including Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet, Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, among hundreds of other scientists.
~
All I am advocating is that we continue debate, cease attempts to silence authoritative dissent, and reject the manipulative view-point that there exists any sort of consensus on the matter.

What is your fear of allowing perfectly credentialed experts to voice their skepticism? Why are you attempting to discredit these numerous scientists? Why are you so utterly opposed to the notion that perfectly reasonable, well-educated experts disagree with your assertions? Why do give credence to those who support your view, while denying the existence of those who do not?
~
I do not reject the scientists who suggest that Global Warming is a man-made phenomenon with real-world consequences. I simply acknowledge the prevalent existence of expert dissenters, as well.

“All I am advocating is that we continue debate, cease attempts to silence authoritative dissent, and reject the manipulative view-point that there exists any sort of consensus on the matter.”
.
Debate on the matter is one thing, and like I said, it’s mostly over. You are not accurately representing the debate, even in its’ nature. No one is suppressing anything in the debate. If anything, the “suppression” has come from those who attempt to characterize a debate they know almost nothing about.
.
You have presented some that don’t ascribe to man made global warming, but just naming names has no bearing on the nature of the debate in the scientific community, which is essentially over.
.
Chuck Officer fought for years against impact at the KT boundary, but was in the minority from 1990 onwards.. Now, there is no question that impact took place, even though there are a few stragglers that deny it.
.
To make a point, there are those who believe that global warming isn’t man made, but I repeat again, they are in the minority. And the GOP, given it’s involvement in the political/economic forces on the other side, is NOT a reliable source.
.
There are many thousands on the other side of the debate, and you completely ignored the evidence I presented above in order to further what you perceive as a “cause”, which isn’t real.
.
That is why I say you are disinforming, not just misinforming.
.
That statement stands. You are disinforming people over this.

Scientifically speaking, mankind’s greatest achievements have come from views that were rejected by the majority of established scientists. In the scientific milieu, being in the minority is nothing to be concerned about. Science is not democratic.

“What is your fear of allowing perfectly credentialed experts to voice their skepticism?”
.
I don’t have any “fear” exiled. This is typical manipulative/suggestive wording on your part. They are, by the nature of the scientific community, allowed to publish before their peers* any point of view. Sometimes, new paradigms are born in the absolutely “nuttiest” theories.
.
When the debate began over impact at the KT boundary began in 1979-80, almost all scientists rejected the premise that impact took place, so, if you really think you know how debate takes place in the scientific community, which it is clear you don’t, read T Rex and the Crater of Doom or Night Comes to the Cretaceous if you want to see how really, really outlandish theories are tested in the arena of scientific debate.
.
You are mistaking it for political debate, and you are absolutely wrong.

“Why are you attempting to discredit these numerous scientists?”
.
How is it possible I have discredited them? Have I disputed their papers here? Have I said that this or that scientist is a quack? I don’t think you should go in this direction as it is more of your attempts to disinform, manipulate, and divert from the real issue:
.
Consensus in the scientific community, which I have already adequately documented.
.
“Why are you so utterly opposed to the notion that perfectly reasonable, well-educated experts disagree with your assertions?”
.
Again I have never even refused to acknowledge their existence, and, again, those are your words only. Do you want me to say explicitly that they exist? Here you go:
.
They exist!
.
There, takes care of that ridiculous assertion. Next:
.
“Why do give credence to those who support your view, while denying the existence of those who do not?”
.
I point to the first part of this obviously loaded question. The bullet?
.
The part where I “deny the existence of”. Ridiculous, exiled, and of course, you are disinforming and manipulating when you make these assertions.
.
And, of course I give “credence” to those who support my view. Actually, those scientists who have provided evidence for man made global warming give credence to “my” views! Not the other way around.
.
Show me where, explicitly, I deny the existence of those who believe that global warming is NOT man made! Show me!
.
“I do not reject the scientists who suggest that Global Warming is a man-made phenomenon with real-world consequences.”
.
Yes you are. You are attempting to tie them to a “Climate-industrial complex” and cast nonscientific motives on them. That is clear, as you have relentlessly ignored my comments on questions regarding the veracity of that contention.
.
“I simply acknowledge the prevalent existence of expert dissenters, as well.”
.
No, you are deliberately attempting to misinform and cast aspirations on those who disagree with you.
*To point out just how open and objective this process is, a peer review process is in place where even if a reviewer has an opposing viewpoint, will not suppress a paper on other than scientific grounds.

53_3
~
Your assertion that the debate is over speaks directly to your denial that scientists, or “serious” scientists, dissent. Consensus. End of debate. These imply the non-existence of any dissension. While in your final post you explain that there indeed are dissenters, how can you reconcile that revelation with your claim that the debate is over?
~
You’re broad assertion that all of the over 400 dissenting scientists named in one report are, in your words, not scientists and know virtually nothing about the subject, cannot be construed as anything other than an attempt to discredit well established and respected scientists who disagree with your stand on Global Warming.

I’m through with this thread, however, because my feelings on Global Warming are in now way solidified nor significant enough to warrant your continued attempts to paint me as a proliferator of disinformation. I am simply characterizing how I view the negligence with which the debate has been conducted. That is my honest opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

“Your assertion that the debate is over speaks directly to your denial that scientists, or “serious” scientists, dissent. Consensus. End of debate. These imply the non-existence of any dissension. While in your final post you explain that there indeed are dissenters, how can you reconcile that revelation with your claim that the debate is over?”
.
Because the debate is over in the same sense that the debate is over about the KT mass extinction.
.
The minority report was crafted by the GOP, and not scientists. There fore, I say again, they are not scientists and know virtually nothing about the subject.
.
They merely compiled a bunch of names of those scientists who support their views. Obviously, it can, and yet, you have yet to take my two issues, the contention about the “Climate-industrial complex” and your contention that I deny the existence of opposition to the consensus view in the scientific community off “relentlessly ignore”.
.
Address them. I’ve addressed all of your contentions and I add another:
.
This is 2009.

“That is my honest opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.”
.
Now we are clear!

53_3
~
While I had intended to depart from this thread, I will briefly respond to the two issues you would like me to address.
~
Let me first say that the possible existence of a “Climate-Industrial Complex” does not imply in and of itself that the Global Warming Theory is baseless and entirely profit-driven. If such a Complex were to exist, it would speak more to the motives of those involved and make their more precarious alarmist views suspect rather than discredit the general Climate Change movement as a whole. In my opinion, there does exist such a working relationship between corporate interests and the more general movement.
~
As David Theroux notes in a May 2009 blog on The Independent Institute, “While true-believing climate alarmists have sought to smear and dismiss legitimate, scientific questions raised by scholars and organizations that receive funding from businesses opposed to climate controls, claiming that they are simply stooges for corporate interests, pro-alarmist groups supported by firms having an obvious interest in the adoption of climate statism are somehow enlightened, objective, incisive, and reliable.” He goes on to point out some of these industries that constitute the Climate Industrial Complex, “In addition to Duke Energy, among the firms pushing for mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions are General Electric, Shell, British Petroleum, Ford, ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Alcoa, American Electric Power, Caterpillar, John Deere, Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo, PNM, Siemens, Xerox, IBM, PG&E, News Corp., PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Nike.”
.
I see that as a fair observation of an inherent double-standard.
~
As Lomborg notes, “Naturally, many CEOs are genuinely concerned about global warming. But many of the most vocal stand to profit from carbon regulations. The term used by economists for their behavior is “rent-seeking…The cozy corporate-climate relationship was pioneered by Enron, which bought up renewable energy companies and credit-trading outfits while boasting of its relationship with green interest groups. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed, an internal memo was sent within Enron that stated, “If implemented, [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory business.”
~
I do not see how one can really deny the existence of a Climate-Industrial Complex driven out of desire to increase profits, and not out of any environmental concerns. Whether you see this as irrelevant or not in that they are still advancing a cause for which you believe will be beneficial to planet Earth is entirely different than ignoring this relationship altogether.
~
As for my inclination to perceive your generally absolutist view that there is a consensus on global warming coupled with your skeptical view of those who dissent as inherently indicative of either a denial that dissension is credible or a dismissal of the notion that when science is at stake continued research and debate should never cease, I still hold that view.
~

According to a Daily Tech article in August 2007: “Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers ‘implicit’ endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no ‘consensus.”
.
So I found out some interesting things about this study. First, it was done by a Physician, an endocrine surgeon specifically. Second, the study looked at the “Fear of anthropogenic “global warming” [which] can adversely affect patients’ well-being,” concluding that “There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.”
.
Yes, that’s right. The study is not actually looking at the issue of climate change consensus for its own sake, it’s looking at it with respect to ordinary people whose well-being is adversely impacted by fear of climate change. Honestly, I think that’s kind of weird.
.
I found a copy of the original study, although I can’t link to it because I accessed it through my university. That’s unfortunate because I actually found it quite entertaining at some points.
.
Here’s the start: “Recently, patients alarmed by the tone of media reports and political speeches on climate change have been voicing distress, for fear of the imagined consequences of anthropogenic “global warming”. In my clinical practice patients with benign and malignant disorders are concerned that their disease may be caused by or related to “climate change” and that they might have remained healthy without it. In discussions, they are sometimes specifically distressed that climate change is man-made and that inefficiency or carelessness of policy makers could thus be the origin of their individual suffering.”
.
And here’s the link to the original Daily Tech article.
.
As for the actual study, “refusing” is a rather strong word choice. Scientific papers rarely address hypotheses if they are not relevant to their topics, so presumably many if not most of the authors of the 48% didn’t need to address climate change. Equating the decision to not address human impact on climate change with not believing in such an impact is too big an assumption. What the study actually suggests is that by a more than 7 to 1 ratio scientific papers accept rather than reject the hypothesis that humans are contributing to climate change.
.
Sounds like a consensus.

About the “Climate-Industrial” complex…
.
It doesn’t exist yet but such a complex is probably our only hope in the fight against climate change. Bill Clinton is unfortunately right that the only way climate change will be effectively addressed is if it’s profitable.
.
Maybe this makes me an extreme right-wing capitalist, but I would love to see a Climate-Industrial complex.

And rose brings in the clincher.
.
I stand in awe of the intellectual prowess represented in these threads.

I stand in awe of the intellectual prowess represented in these threads.
-
This is why I hope Repzak and others who are mere lurkers will dip their toes into the Swamp every now and again. As a community we are a rich group and I learn things every single day from my presense here.

Is it alright to think that global warming is not entirely man-made but still think polluting the environment is bad? Because…

Is it alright to think that global warming is not entirely man-made but still think polluting the environment is bad? Because…
-
I find it fascinating that no one has bothered to mention another good reason to limit our carbon emissions: the acidification of the oceans. The oceans absorb more CO2 than any of the plant life on Earth could, but the effect is to cause an imbalance in pH levels in the water. If nothing else the rapid dying off of sea life because of the changing pH levels in the oceans should be reason enough (and is a much more tangible effect of excess CO2 in the atmosphere) to limit our carbon emissions in the atmosphere.

Actually, Exiled:
.
I agree with you that there is a “Climate-industrial complex”, and I do so without reservation. However, I look at it this way:
.
Even if there is a “Climate-industrial complex” how is it more “extreme” than the existing one that the GOP has been flirting with for several years now?
.
And second, why should there not be a counteracting force?
.
My complaints had to do with your misrepresenting the scientific debate. I made it very clear that you are not accurate in that respect, which is the source of the certainty in my statements.
.
Nothing negligent took place in the debate on global warming, all papers were peer reviewed*, and had there been a telling rebuttal from them, just like how the KT boundary impact debate stood several earth sciences on their head, the consensus would be very different than it is now.
.
Apollyon07:
.
Again, had someone talked about the shortcomings, say this one:
.
“Why is it that the temperate zones are not warming as fast as anticipated?” as an argument, rather than using the “a bunch of politicians in my party got a bunch of scientists who believe the way we do” approach, there would be a lot less certainty and more honest debate on this.
.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but when I come in swinging, it is often for a different reason than what I am usually charged with.
.
Read the many, many posts very carefully and you will see that I never denied, never besmirched those scientists, and reserved my commentary solely to three issues:
.
1. The significance of the existence of the “Climate-industrial complex”
2. The true nature of how scientific debate takes place, with links and books accounting for how some can hold contrary belief, and how a consensus (this one), is very comparable to the KT impact debate.
3. The lack of knowledge displayed by GOP politicians which I characterized exactly when I made my bolded, italicised statement pertaining to the 2007 minority report.

Just to refresh everyone’s memory, here is the most significant statement on the consensus of which I speak:
.
I hand you Wikipedia, not for the content, but for the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
.
Read this line, exiled. Read it twice:
.
“Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.”

Again, here is the most significant refutation of that position:
.
While the board-members of these scientific bodies are in consensus, each has dissenting members who frequently voice their skepticism and constitute a significant rejection of the consensus myth.

Yutsano- See, I have not bought into the assertion that global warming is entirely man-made. I think that part of it is, but that there are other factors at play as well. I have other reasons for being concerned about the environment, such as the one you described with the oceans. One big one for me is air quality. I am lucky enough to have grown up in and lived in a city that is very clean, unpolluted, and has great air quality. Not enough cities in America are like this, in my opinion. We’ve seen that people who grow up in cities with polluted air have far more occurrences of respiratory illnesses, but what not many people know is there are higher incidences of neurological disorders in these situations too, such as autism. Scary.
.
I feel the urge to follow the stance of my hero on this one, Theodore Roosevelt.

I have other reasons for being concerned about the environment, such as the one you described with the oceans. One big one for me is air quality. I am lucky enough to have grown up in and lived in a city that is very clean, unpolluted, and has great air quality. Not enough cities in America are like this, in my opinion. We’ve seen that people who grow up in cities with polluted air have far more occurrences of respiratory illnesses, but what not many people know is there are higher incidences of neurological disorders in these situations too, such as autism. Scary.

-
They have been doing more and more studies on the air quality in inner cities and the results have been very frightening. (I know they’re available out there on the Internet but I tend to blog at work and searching around for various linkages is problematic.) There are many many good reasons for switching to solar, geothermal, wind, and even nuclear (though nuclear is problematic for a host of reasons) that have little to do with global warming. Simply put, it’s better for us as humans and stewards of the planet all around. As I’ve been reading about the acidification of the oceans it scares me as an avid seafood lover. That seems to me to be a huge reason to change course on what we’re doing.

Exiled:
.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Of course there are dissenting scientists! You are exactly right, yet, I repeat:
.
You do NOT know what you are talking about.
.
If you are going to talk about scientific consensus, then you should learn something about how it is done.
.
It is not a political or a democratic process. It is not like a company board meeting, and no elections or votes take place. Read those books I recommended! Read them to understand what consensus means in the scientific world, how it is changed, and how orthodoxy can be upset.

[...] bill passes House 29 06 2009 The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a landmark bill targeted at climate change on Friday evening. Now it’s on to the Senate for legislation that [...]

53_3
~
Which books did you recommend? I’m not asking to suggest that you didn’t recommend anything, I simply do not recall and cannot find where you recommended any books.
~
It is not a political or a democratic process.
Exactly my point. I said as much yesterday:
# Exiled_At_Home (formerly neo) Says:
Sunday, June 28, 2009 at 12:28 pm

Scientifically speaking, mankind’s greatest achievements have come from views that were rejected by the majority of established scientists. In the scientific milieu, being in the minority is nothing to be concerned about. Science is not democratic.
~

A few points to keep things in context:
.
1. Climate change denial has been embraced, if not lead, by the Republican party. A political party that routinely attacks science on principle. Many of the party’s leaders (even if quietly, in order to avoid ridicule) believe that the Earth is a mere few thousand years old, dinosaurs never existed, and that oil was placed under the land by God for mankind to exploit to the fullest. Listening to these people discuss “scientific debates” is a joke.
.
2. Anyone who suggests that those advocating a swift reduction in carbon emissions are doing so for personal, financial reasons is an idiot or a liar and probably both. The idea that someone like Al Gore couldn’t make far, far more money by consulting for multinational energy companies than by picking fights with them is just stupid on its face. People fear the worst-case climate change scenarios because they are catastrophic. Those who refuse to address such scenarios with the seriousness that they demand represent a mortal threat to this country and humanity.