First Shot Fired in the GOP Battle Against Action on Climate Change
It happened so quietly that few media outlets noticed. But Republicans are already rolling out their strategy to delay -- and perhaps even stave off -- congressional action to combat climate change.
The Journal's blog relays the basic fact: an anonymous senator has placed one of those pesky "holds" used prerogatives to slow down action on the nomination of Lisa Jackson, the president's pick to head the EPA, as well as the nomination of Nancy Sutley, future head of the Council on Environmental Quality.
Jackson told the Senate environment committee last week that she would quickly re-examine California's request, backed by more than a dozen other states, to strictly regulate auto emissions. But this isn't really about Jackson or Sutley ...
... it's about Carol Browner, the incoming White House climate and energy adviser. As Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK), senior Republican on the environment committee and the leading fly in the climate change ointment, told the Washington Times:
I'm quite concerned that [Sutley's] role has been diluted by the addition of former EPA Administrator Carol Browner as White House climate and energy czar. The new Senate-confirmed CEQ chair will be expected to have the full authority to represent the White House on all matters before this committee.
By holding up Jackson and Sutley, Senate Republicans are doing more than just signaling their discontent that they won't get to question and vote on Browner -- although Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN] suggests to the Times that Browner be called in for a "quasi-confirmation" hearing. They're previewing their strategy to knock down the climate regulation bill that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), environment committee chairman, will release later this year.
Here's how it might look: After Boxer's climate bill emerges, Republicans would immediately protest the involvement of Browner, a White House adviser who was never fully vetted by the Senate. (Never mind that installing senior aides in the White House to avoid confirmation was a hallmark of George Bush.)
By raising questions about Jackson's authority over the regulatory process, GOPers would generate media interest in the storyline -- Is the president's adviser interfering to push for stronger action? -- and create a drag on the legislative movement to regulate emissions. Senators are already making clear that action on climate change is more likely to come next year than this year, even as House energy and commerce chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) vows to pass a bill by Memorial Day.
Which Republican senator is behind the Jackson and Sutley holds, and how soon can Democrats break the delay? We'll keep you posted.
| TOPICS: Barack Obama, Environment, Jim Inhofe, Republicans, Senate
Josh
Matt
Eric
Wait, what? The Republicans in the Senate are throwing a fit over who President Obama chooses to advise him now? What's wrong with these people?
January 22, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
...did you seriously just ask that? As if there were no objections to any Bush appointees?
January 22, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Alberto Gonzales was such a fine choice.
January 22, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can disagree with all of Bush's choices; you can't act shocked that Republicans would disagree with any of Obama's selections.
January 22, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet people can be mildly surprised at the political tone-deafness such brazen attempts to stall action on climate change represent.
Much like the pathetic defense of "Barack the Magic Negro," the GOP looks more patently troglodytic with each successive attempt to assert itself.
January 22, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep...now they'll never get the "Green Peace" vote...
January 22, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
While comments like that may please people like James Watt, I think you're about to discover the political stakes inherent in so-called environmental issues have broadened and deepened considerably since say 1982.
January 22, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
...the severity of the "political stakes" are in direct correlation with the price of fuel...let a gallon of gas head north of $2.00 again and we'll see.
January 22, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're wrong. People are more attuned than ever to the potential ramifications of climate change and weighing it among other issues in evaluating candidates.
Hell, even the fundies are organizing behind it politically, creating tiny fissures that will in time become gaping holes in the so-called religious right. Socially conservative, anti-statism is an ideology whose time has passed.
January 22, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Snap!
http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority
January 23, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
And as we've all just seen for ourselves, conservation -- not "Drill Here Now" -- keeps those prices down south.
January 22, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep...now they'll never get the "Green Peace" vote...
You idiots won't be getting all sorts of votes for quite a long time. Enjoy, loser.
January 22, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Green Peace"
If I correctly construe this, it is an *attempt by Bilko to reference that pernicious group who have the effrontery to advocate for the general well being of the planet, viz
Greenpeace.
*It's one word, you moron.
January 22, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is standard for the Republicans. They want to win. My objection is that Democrats don't use the same tactic.
January 22, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
How does a hold work? Is it possible to just block a nominee or a piece of legislation forever? Can anyone give me the low down on this?
January 22, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute. Didn't Harry Reid show that holds can simply be ignored when he suggested he was going to do just that on Dodd's hold on the FISA bill? (though, I don't remember if he actually went through with it)
January 22, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Taking aggressive action to fight the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change is an issue with tremendous popular resonance, one who's time has come.
Surely this is a fight, definitive as it is for so much of Obama's agenda, from which the Dems won't shrink.
January 22, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The hold is by Jim "non compos mentis" Bunning, R-Big Coal.
That's why he just reappeared after months as a no-show. They doped him up with enough speed to get him through a couple of hearings and make the hold.
Trust me.
January 22, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bunning is, coincidentally, up for re-election in '10.
January 22, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
No coincidence. His staff is following the Strom Thurmond procedure: prop him up and cast votes for him for years after he flat-lines.
D.C. rumors are that the GOP is trying to force him out in favor of a youngster like Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who'd have a better chance against the Democratic nominee.
But Bunning's fate depends on which one Mitch McConnell would rather have: a staff-run automaton with seniority or an energetic freshman who might not take orders.
January 22, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, I was just assuming is was Inhoffe--considering his complete conspiracy theory craziness on this issue.
What I'm wondering is, can they break the hold? Is there any time limit to it? I just consider it the most craven form of obstructionism, but that's clearly all the Repubs have to offer anymore. What a great theme for 2010!
January 22, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
can they break the hold
Yes and no.
As I understand it (and without doubt there are insiders around here whose help is solicited...)
a hold is kind of a "soft filibuster" since it is enforced, ultimately, by the implied agreement of the minority caucus (excluding, because I do not understand, a hold from a member of the majority party) to filibuster if the hold is ignored by the Majority Leader and the issue is brought up in regular order.
There also seems to be a generalized power to bring down the business of either house by an individual member refusing to agree to a unanimous consent not to have a open voice reading of the bill at hand (think five hundred pages...).
I'm not sure where the unanimous consent issue dovetails with the senatorial hold, but I think that the only remedy in any case is in the hands of Harry Reid.
Ergo,
We're fucked.
January 22, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once more, the Republicans grandstand for their yahoo and dingbat base. Four years of this will insure that we have Obama for eight. Smart thinking, Repubs.
January 22, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is pathetic that so many fools still believe Gore's fantasy of global warming and the impending doom of us all. Today we had the first frost in over a decade, most of the midwest is setting record cold temps. IT snowed in Baghdad for the first time in 5000 years. China, Russia, and most of europe are having or just recently had their coldest winters in decades to centuries. Yet Al and his band of dimwits keep insisting that, despite a complete lack of any evidence, we should trust them. Pathetic.
January 22, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are obviously more informed than most of the scientific community.
January 22, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, you are obviously deluded into thinking that the majority of the scientific community agrees with you. They do not. Many are afraid to speak out because of threats to their employment.
January 22, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously don't understand the way science works. If you could disprove something 95% of the scientists in the world think has been proven you would get the Nobel Prize and as many hot 22 year old lab assistants as you wanted for the rest of your life.
January 22, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't understand science at all. First, 95% do not believe in this crap. Second, It is up to the supporters to prove the theory, it should be regarded as untrue until proven. You want to claim it to be true and then require someone to disprove it. It is much harder to prove something does not exist than to prove it does. The complete lack of unicorns does not prove they do not exist, the presence of one proves they do. How about some real evidence (like an increase in temps as observed from space)? Oh, forgot the sat data does not show that. Too bad for you.
January 22, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody has "proven" the theory of relativity, or found the cause of gravity either. You don't have to prove a theory. Nothing is provable 100%.
I am a scientist. A "theory" is not something that is accepted only when it's "proven". We scientists call it a theory precisely because you cannot prove it. You can only weigh the evidence and decide what is the best "theory" to explain it.
And it's climate!!! Changes in daily weather have nothing to say about climate. Weather is today, and is highly changeable. Climate is long term, and changes slowly. By using a freaking frost event, or snow in Baghdad to prove your point, you are only proving your ignorance.
Did I say nothing is provable 100%. I was wrong. Your ignorance is.
January 22, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
A scientist who thinks that gravity is unexplainable? That says it all. BTW, I understand the difference completely, I am simply pointing out that annecdotal evidence can be provided both ways. You AGW kooks want to cite sea ice in the arctiic or sea levels in Vanuatu or temps in any place abnormally warm as proof, then discount abnormally cold temps as just weather.
January 22, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just insane. The scientific community actively persues contrarian theories. But only those that have evidence to back them up. Nobody loses their job for being wrong, as long as they are sound in their work.
Again, for a "cleverbulldog", you are anything but the first 6, and all of the last seven. Not a good combination.
January 22, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again you are misinformed. Just recently there were calls to remove accredidation from any meteorolgist that disputed GW. This is typical liberal behavior, silence the critics. Google it, I'm sure you can find it.
January 22, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I am prepared for the Church of Global Warming true believers to discount all the above as annecdotal evidence. I will point out however that they are the first to cite such evidence to support their preposterous claims. There is always some glacier melting somewhere or a heat wave somewhere. So my evidence of abnormal cold temps is a valid rebuttal.
January 22, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will also point out your claims about historical CO2 levels have been shown to be distorted by selectively including only the lowest recorded samples, otherwise the CO2 levels would show no marked increase over the last several hundred years. It is also not often disclosed that the ice core sample method is flawed because of the rate at which the ice freezes and the ability of gas to penetrate various levels, making a clean sample impossible. And add to that the simple fact that until we developed the ability to measure from space there is no way to calculate an 'average' global temp, so your data is flawed because of how it is collected.
January 22, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Global warming is associated with more volatile weather patterns. As this article states:
(Repeating URL in case the "hotlink" doesn't work: http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-14-voa5.cfm
January 22, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, he said it. That must make it true!
January 22, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh, the old, "it's cold outside so the planet can't be warming", defense. The old fallback.
How many of these "frightened" scientists, scared to death to tell the real truth, have you spoken with? Or did Rush Limbaugh tell you about them?
A collection of scientists just discovered this:
Study Finds New Evidence of Warming in Antarctica
Here's a story from VoA about why cold temperatures, even record cold temperatures, in one location/region and/or single year, are not a sign that there is no global warming, just as record high temperatures in one location/region and/or single year are not proof that there is global warming. Scientists look at the big picture and many of them say that, yes, the earth is warming and that, yes, we likely are contributing to that warming:
Meteorologists: Global Warming and Cold Weather Go Hand-In-Hand
And if most scientists are convinced that the earth is warming and if many of them believe that we - humans - are contributing to that warming - why not err on the side of caution and takes steps to try to delay/prevent this warming. Every time I get in the car, the odds are greatly in my favor that I won't get into an accident. Yet I still put on my seatbelt every time I get in the car. In fact, the law requires that I do so. Why should we treat our planet differently?
January 22, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because we are talking about spending hundreds of billions to trillions worldwide for nothing. A complete waste of vast resources that could be spent curing cancer or other worthwile endeavors.
January 22, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
WTF are you talking about? We haven't spent shit, yet, relative to the scope of the potential problem.
And I will happily discount your anecdote, not as untrue, but as irrelevant.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
January 22, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
...or perhaps providing an education for ossified canines who mistake glib for clever.
January 22, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, TCB, I'll take the bait. Climate change is not just about "warming." The impact varies across the planet, though the warming effects are the most profound (rising sea levels, tundra melting and releasing potent warming gas methane, etc.)
Unfortunately, we may already be past the point of no return. If that's the case, TCB, I'd be happy to sit alongside you in lawn chairs, sipping tepid beverages, while we watch the atmosphere catch fire. It'll be fun to hear you debunk the "anecdotal evidence" then ;)
January 22, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alarmist but untrue. There is no evidence that the planet has warmed significantly at all. There is evidence that periodically it goes through war periods and cold periods, probably due to inclination changes and solar output. We didn't cause the ice ages, or the warm periods, and we are not affecting things today. We are insignificant bugs on a huge planet.
January 22, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age
09.30.2008
Sept. 30, 2008: Astronomers who count sunspots have announced that 2008 is now the "blankest year" of the Space Age.
As of Sept. 27, 2008, the sun had been blank, i.e., had no visible sunspots, on 200 days of the year. To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go back to 1954, three years before the launch of Sputnik, when the sun was blank 241 times.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm
January 22, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously confuse weather with climate. Please try to understand the difference before inserting your foot into your overly large maw.
January 22, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have confused weather and climate. Because it's cold outside today doesn't prove global climate change doesn't exist.
Please understand your subject at least a little bit before pontificating. It makes you look silly otherwise.
January 22, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have confused weather (daily fluctuations in temperature, etc.) with climate (long term weather patterns). Using a frost event or snow in Baghdad on one day to prove your point makes you look silly.
Please try to understand your subject at least a little bit before pontificating. You look stupid otherwise.
January 22, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, now I look stupid.
I'll figure out this new fangled thing eventually.
January 22, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw a clean coal commercial earlier this morning starring President Obama. The lobby group used footage of his remarks on the campaign trail to make it look like he's a strong supporter of coal.
January 22, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
...that's because he lied and said he was.
January 22, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
He said it could be part of an overall energy plan, along with several other forms of energy, but he never said he was a strong supporter of it.
The only liar is you--projection is a common trait among wingnuts.
January 22, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, because "part of an overall energy plan" means "if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them" and "no coal plants here in America. No way."
January 22, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we're going to see how strong a leader Obama is and how much clout he actually has. It's vitally important for these environmental advisers and appointees to be approved, I just don't understand how more Republicans aren't willing to accept and combat climate change. It's like they don't care about their children or their grandchildren...or they don't intend on breathing oxygen in the future. I don't know, it just boggles my mind.
January 22, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says
A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm
January 22, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Science is not decided by polling, or by voting. It is decided by facts, of which you have none.
January 22, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, that was a poll of over 3,000 scientists, who obviously used FACTS to come to their conclusion. That's the way science works. Do you think they all lied? O, that's right...you do probably think they lied because somehow you know that they lie and hide the truth because they are afraid of losing their jobs.
Anyway, from that poll of scientists - you know, the people who study this stuff:
"Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second."
January 22, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The FACT is that you don't understand what you just responded to. Or you would not have assumed that the POLL is the science. Polling can be used in scientific inquiry - that is not what was done with that poll.
Another FACT is that the poll respondents DISAGREE with you, and the scientists who most closely study climate disagree more strongly than those who do not explicitly study climate.
January 22, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The eratic weather is part of Global Warming. The dutton Peabody link explains. Detractors need to do more than listen to the likes of Inhofe.
January 22, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Bull,
Why is it you folks never cite any studies ? Just op-eds ?
January 22, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Harry Reid doesn't come out of his opium den and kick these scumbags in the nuts my friggin head is gonna explode.
January 22, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may want to credt AP for your avatar to avoid a law suit.
January 22, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
All Earth's Seasons Now Arrive Two Days Earlier, Researchers Report
"We see 100 years where there is a very natural pattern of variability, and then we see a large departure from that pattern at the same time as global mean temperatures start increasing, which makes us suspect that there's a human role here," he said.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121144053.htm
January 22, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Much Of Antarctica Is Warming More Than Previously Thought
ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2009) — Scientists studying climate change have long believed that while most of the rest of the globe has been getting steadily warmer, a large part of Antarctica – the East Antarctic Ice Sheet – has actually been getting colder.
But new research shows that for the last 50 years, much of Antarctica has been warming at a rate comparable to the rest of the world.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121144049.htm
January 22, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Changes 'amplify Arctic warming'
Scientists say they now have unambiguous evidence that the warming in the Arctic is accelerating.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7786910.stm
Over 2T tons of ice melted in arctic since 2003
WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-12-16-arctic-ice-melting_N.htm
January 22, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
NOAA: 2008 Global Temperature Ties as Eighth Warmest on Record
January 14, 2009
The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. For December alone, the month also ranked as the eighth warmest globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature. The assessment is based on records dating back to 1880.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090113_ncdcstats.html
January 22, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP can say what they want about Obama's Whitehouse adviser but they can't do anything about it. She doesn't need to go in front of the Senate to be approved. They can go on and on about they think that she is a socialist, etc but again they can't do anything about it.
January 22, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Commenter "theCleverBulldog" is a deliberate liar.
All of his statements about climate science are lies, and he knows it.
There is no use arguing with a deliberate liar. He doesn't care what you say. He will simply repeat his lies.
January 22, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're probably right. However, I think it's important to reply to his charges with facts and information...not necessarily for his benefit, but for all others.
January 22, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arctic ice thickness 'plummets'
The thickness of Arctic sea ice "plummeted" last winter, thinning by as much as one-fifth in some regions, satellite data has revealed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7692963.stm
January 22, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing this can happen, and yet there is no increase in temperatures. Truly amazing. Even the kooks that believe in AGW only claim 1.5 degree increase over the last century. How did that melt all the ice? Or maybe something else is going on? Stop trying to prove it's getting hotter by pointing out symptoms. Show me the temperature readings.
January 22, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your link info is out of date. Here is one that shows ice levels rebounded to 1979 levels.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/categories/C19
January 22, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The two issues here are confirmation of presidential appointments and policy legislation. Both should move forward, subject to congressional approval by a majority or super-majority (presidential veto of legislation). The quaint practice of one senator putting a "hold" on performance of the constitutional duties of the congress should be challenged and discarded. The fact that one senator can "hold" such power is absurd. Add to this the insult that the senator may do so anonymously. I recognize that each chamber is allowed to set its own rules, but may we not expect that the fundamental actions of our government be subject to a healthy debate, followed by majority rule?
January 22, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Bull
You are to be commended for your boundless patience; It does not seem to make any difference what data is adduced where these asshole trolls are concerned.
If it makes your efforts feel less disrespected, I find your collection of links useful for confronting my own personal collection of asshole trolls.
Thanks.
January 22, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The foregoing in reply to DP above.
January 22, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, let's not be hasty.
Troll may not be an asshole - it may be an employee of American Petroleum Institute, or the Coal Producer's Association, performing the tasks for which it is paid its wages.
January 22, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
wages
You are quite right, and I am justly chastened.
He does not, as the expression goes, walk into a bachelorette party where I am working and start heckling me...
January 22, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why the anonymity? One would suppose the rightwingers would want to tout their opposition to rational environmental policy in order to score points with the dwindling "Republican base."
Perhaps their cowardice is instinctive. Maybe they should don their hoods for floor debate.
January 22, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
IT's your democratic party that was home to the KKK, like your senator Byrd, a long time KKK'er.
January 22, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note :
Mr. Bull, has yet to link one report or study to back his views. Just assertions, yet he knows how "science works".
January 22, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've gotta love the avatar, though. It's perfect - a dunce cap on a dog would be overdone, but the academic garb strikes just the perfect note.
January 22, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ion,
I'm waiting for him to link up those Baghdad weather records. I wonder what "snow" reads like in cuneiform ?
January 22, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, I've got to eat lunch. If you want evidence, google it yourself. It's easy to do. I read the most recent study from Canadian climatologists as linked to on Drudgereport (i'm sure you don't look there for anything). There are numerous refutations for al the links you posted. Do your own reasearch.
January 22, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only problem is that all of those refutations have been refuted.
I have googled. And spent hours at realclimate.org, the MIT climate science web pages, the US Dept of Defense, and UNESCO.
And I've got 30 years of my own anecdotes that dovetail with what my research has revealed.
I realize you don't want to believe it, and you prefer the company of others of like mind.
That's just too bad.
January 22, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kenga -
You gotta love those folks who read Drudge for science news, and then lecture on just what science means , and how it works.
January 22, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drudge for science news
Drudge!
Precious Blood of the Sweet Baby Jesus, Drudge!
Stab me and sink me for rotflao...
January 22, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
rotflao
rotflmao...
(how lame is it to fuck up an acronym?)
January 22, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
...it happens.
January 22, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
...cuz everyone knows the only place to find links to unbiased scientific reporting is the DailyKos, Huffington or The DU...
January 22, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that shows you are a fool. Drudge simply provides links to other sources, so the fact that the link was on drudge does not imply anything about the content of the story or it's source. Man you people are really stupid!
January 22, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another thing you guys do, when you can't back up your assertions.
If one makes claims, one must produce evidence.
January 22, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
January 22, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bull/Sarge,
Come on, it's a new day. The current evidence is compelling and as studies are conducted it just gets more compelling. The evidence also suggests that the longer we wait the less likely that the problem can ever be solved.
What is it about you, or others, who treat this as some court where if the evidence does not prove this or that beyond a shadow of a doubt (in your mind) we do NOTHING? What do YOU get out of that? Are you actually saying that until we can measure average temperatures from space all studies are to be ignored?
If the evidence is not compelling enough for you will you at least admit that fossil fuels will run out "eventually" -- even if we drill everywhere? Will you admit that buying oil from from elsewhere would still be needed if we drill here more, and that contributes to other bad things?
Barring all of that, how about just sharing your vision (or linking to someone's) of the future. As far as I can tell it consists of lower pollution standards (or blocking new standards), more coal plants, drilling in Alaska, the Gulf and other areas and no fuel efficiency standards for cars and SUVs. And somehow, that's going to make the USA a better place... Please layout a big picture for us.
January 22, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I drive a Prius, and when the plug in electrics become available, I will buy one. I support developing alternative fuels, I support nuclear for more power generation. I also support drilling in areas where we suspect large amounts of oil exist. It makes sense to use domestically available oil instead of sending dollars to support terrorism, and we will continue to need oil for some time. None of that means AGW is real. Many supporters of GW have a goal of cripling western economies to benefit the third world. Socialists like Browner share this view.
January 22, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those who place anonymous holds need to be called out for what they are: COWARDS.
January 22, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way ...... Dec. 30th here, we set a new high temp record for the date 80 degrees, we set a new record again on Jan. 3rd. And we're going to set another one today. The average high for this time of year is 52 degrees.
We set our all time rainfall event record last Sept 11-12 - 7.80 inches in 24 hrs.
Something else predicted in a hotter world.
Extreme rain events.
January 22, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do these evil cretins who believe the earth is flat have any say in matters of science or anything having to do with health and well being of mankind
Guess what fuck nuts Obama is bringing science back
January 22, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
These anti-everything Republicans are about to get a big surprise - they are a minority, even in their own party. For one Democrats already have a 60 seat majority, especially on climate. Can you say, John McCain, children.
Peace.
January 22, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve plus the 2 Maine senators.
January 22, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Joh McCain was an unstable, doddering, dymentia patient with no grasp of reality...now he's your climate change guru?
January 22, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Minus ten points for the straw man.
January 22, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you subtract politics from a person you get character - McCain knows right from wrong and understands that his legacy is tied to Obama succeeding and him being a part.
January 22, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've notice that the :
"It's a big world" argument is making a come back.
We've turned the most extensive river system in the American west into a piece of plumbing. Hell, we can turn Niagra Falls off if we chose.
Everyday the coal trains leaving the Powder River basin, if hooked up in one train, would be 35 miles long. That's 245 miles of coal cars every week, and that's just out of one coal region.
We pumped one Trillion barrels of oil since 1859, and burnt most of it.
But in the deniers mind none of this gets counted. We're just puny ants crawling on the earth.
January 22, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the words of the great philosopher Steven Wright, "it's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it."
January 22, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
the regulatory process
When you have a substantive loser, and you are vindicating the interests of the status quo, you do best to dig your heels in over procedural trivia.
I wonder how the game would have played out with Browner simply appointed to her old EPA spot and confirmed.
Surely Prez had the capital to overcome any of the Socialist International bullshit.
January 22, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look. Wingnuts do not start with facts and use logic to reach a conclusion. They start by believing whatever is most psychologically comforting to them, and construct a web of fantasy so they can pretend that what they believe is true. One might say that this is the fundamental difference between the left and the right. The left faces facts and uses logic; the right, consumed by fear and self-loathing, huddles trembling in the storm cellar of its damaged mind.
It is a waste of time to argue with these sorts of people. CleverBulldog believes that global climate change is a myth because he is too afraid to believe that it's true. He didn't reach his conclusion based on facts or logic, therefore, he cannot be convinced to change his position using facts or logic. It's best to ignore such people.
January 22, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like you're describing the GW kooks. I believe AGW is a myth because, much like bigfoot, there is no evidence to prove it is not. The same people (Dr Hansen) who now wail about the impending heat wave were once telling us we would be in an ice age now.
January 22, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Bulldog does not want to believe in climate change, then so be it. There will be no convincing done. He probably does not live in Southern California, where the Santa Ana winds have become a months long phenomenon, where they used to last no longer than two weeks. He probably does not live in the gulf coast, which has now taken over the traditional hurricane track. He probably pays no attention to animal migratory patterns, or any pattern whatsoever. He only cherry picks information from special interest funded research as it funnels into the reactionary media sphere. His selective perceptions in no way impact the veracity of manmade climate impact.
I do appreciate the links provided, however, They are great reading.
January 22, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you going to do with the clueless wingnuts who deny global warming?
Eh, not much.
Let them plug their fingers in their ears and sing loudly "lalalalalallalaaa i cannot hear you lalalalalala". I have no problem with that really. I don't debate people who think spirits cause sickness either. Why bother? Some people you just cannot reach, like the Obama birth certificate conspiracy morons. Despite a mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise, they cling tightly to their emotionally comforting beliefs because they know the truth will dash their preconceived notions on the rocks.
January 22, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a link to a site with lots of articles for you to read, though I doubt you or any other GW nutcase will.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/categories/C19
January 22, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, I am usually up on these things. Who the hell is Senator Barrasso? (Or is that BareAssHole)?
January 22, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink