By Perry Bacon Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, July 23, 2010
Conceding that they can't find enough votes for the legislation, Senate Democrats on Thursday abandoned efforts to put together a comprehensive energy bill that would seek to curb greenhouse gas emissions, delivering a potentially fatal blow to a proposal the party has long touted and President Obama campaigned on.
Instead, Democrats will push for a more limited measure that would seek to increase liability costs that oil companies would pay following spills such as the one in the Gulf of Mexico. It also would create additional incentives for the development of natural gas vehicles and would provide rebates for products that reduce home energy use. Senate Democrats said they expected to find GOP support for the bill and pass it in the next two weeks.
Democrats have not ruled out pushing for a more extensive measure when Congress returns from its August recess or in the session after the November midterm elections, although it's not clear that any of the Democrats or Republicans who now oppose a more expansive measure would change their minds. Republicans have long argued that the bill, by seeking to limit emissions, would lead to higher energy costs, a view that some conservative Democrats have also taken.
The decision to abandon the proposal was another concession to the difficult political environment that party leaders face, as many rank-and-file congressional Democrats are wary of casting any votes that could be used in Republican attacks.
Democrats who advocated the broader measure didn't hide their disappointment in falling short. Carol M. Browner, the White House's climate adviser, said, "Obviously everyone is disappointed," while Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the primary sponsor of the bill, said the legislation Democrats will take up next week is "admittedly narrow."
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) blamed the GOP for blocking the measure, noting that no Senate Republicans had said they would support it. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who helped write the legislation with Kerry and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), announced in June that he would no longer back the measure, arguing that Congress should pursue a smaller, more targeted bill.
But despite weeks of meetings to reach a compromise, Democrats themselves were deeply divided. Republicans took delight in the dispute. Robert Dillon, GOP communications director for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in an e-mail: "Reid can hardly blame Republicans for opposing legislation that would raise energy prices on Americans, when his own party doesn't even support the idea."
Whoops never replied to this. The article you linked seems to say that the public has been confused by the amount of effort some have put into undermining the scientific data. The people are unsure even though the majority of science is clear about climate change . The article even talks about the "cooked stats" and how most have been proven to be correct. As with most topics like this it seems there are some people who will campaign against or for with no regard to the truth thus confusing the issue for the general public.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-23-2010).]
That's just it isn't it some believe Al Gore and Co. are nuts and are a bunch of Chicken Little's while others believe that Man has absolutely no effect on Climate. The truth is more likely in the middle.
Agreed, and BTW anybody watching the track of tropical storm Bonnie? Where it is tracking through the Bahamas and into the Gulf, in other years it would be heating up and developing into a hurricane. Now they are predicting a tropical storm. Notice that we are still having low sunspot numbers and the oil in the Gulf must be cooling things there too. Interesting times.
Whoops never replied to this. The article you linked seems to say that the public has been confused by the amount of effort some have put into undermining the scientific data. The people are unsure even though the majority of science is clear about climate change . The article even talks about the "cooked stats" and how most have been proven to be correct. As with most topics like this it seems there are some people who will campaign against or for with no regard to the truth thus confusing the issue for the general public.
You asked if I'd read any of the links in the post. Was there some point about that?
I don't think people are confused. They heard the hype, they heard nonsense like "scientific consensus" and "the science is settled" and said "WOAH!" Then climategate and various other scandals broke out, and it tipped the balance of public opinion.
You asked if I'd read any of the links in the post. Was there some point about that?
I don't think people are confused. They heard the hype, they heard nonsense like "scientific consensus" and "the science is settled" and said "WOAH!" Then climategate and various other scandals broke out, and it tipped the balance of public opinion.
Yeah my point is the article and the links you supplied seems to support Climate Change.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-23-2010).]
Don't get confused. The real issue is not Climate Change. Climate always changes, and goes through continual cycles. The real issue is people trying to lay blame, take credit, and profit from an naturally occurring weather pattern.
It should surprise no one that we are going through an extreme cycle. Last winter we had record cold in Europe, and people died. This summer we have record warm, while at the same time Antarctica has recorded the coldest temp ever in July.
We need to be vigilant about our pocket books. People like Al Gore are out to take your money on false and misleading pretences. We can't afford to forget about this. These people are still around and their pawns in the media are still publishing their propoganda in the name of news.
That's just it though the science is showing this is not a natural cycle, it's unprecedented according to things like ice core data.
Don't get me wrong I'm sure there are lots of people that overstate things and try and profit from it but there arer plenty that will say the opposite to try and keep their profits going as well.
Yeah my point is the article and the links you supplied seems to support Climate Change.
Yes, the article does. Most in the media do. That wasn't the point.
1. The media is largely liberal, and have bought into the global warming hoax. 2. The purpose of posting the article was that the public's opinion is changing against global warming.
Originally posted by newf: That's just it though the science is showing this is not a natural cycle, it's unprecedented according to things like ice core data.
Don't get me wrong I'm sure there are lots of people that overstate things and try and profit from it but there arer plenty that will say the opposite to try and keep their profits going as well.
probably the most honest thing in this whole thread
Wow. So cap and tax is SO beneficial and SO popular, that you don't dare try to pass legislation until AFTER you've already lost your congressional job and have nothing to lose?
Yes, the article does. Most in the media do. That wasn't the point.
1. The media is largely liberal, and have bought into the global warming hoax. 2. The purpose of posting the article was that the public's opinion is changing against global warming.
I agree the public's opinion might be changing but I think it has more to do with the economy than most other factors, people tend to consider such things as less of a priority in hard economic times, look at developing nations, most are just trying to eke out a living and have no time to consider the effects on the environment or for that matter their own health and safety.
I'm sure the Oil companies would love for everyone to continue to use and increase their consumption of fossil fuels. As I've said before there were plenty of "scientists and doctors" willing to go to bat for the tabacco companies as well, doesn't mean they were right.
You don't have to be an oil company stooge to see the blatant falsehoods and distortions of the Global Warming alarmists. Al Gore's friends are both rich and influential and invested heavily in such things as wind farm technology and solar panels. The scientists at East Anglia were falsifying data in order to make a case for more government funding. The Third World scientists continue to make a case for us giving them everything we have and more while their intelligentsia continue to repress their own populaces.
There is a world out there that wants what we have earned. They want our money. They don't intend to work for it like we did. You have to give the oil companies this much. They work for what they get. They don't have to lie about it to get the money. This anthropological global warming stuff is just made for hucksters and fraud artists. Al Gore, his friends, Barack and his friends, and the list goes on. At least in Canada we have the privilege of having a smart Prime Minister who has been quietly shelving the whole global warming initiative that would pull money out of our pockets and out of our country. He managed to steer the last G20 away from a destructive course of action and put the global warming alarmists on the back burner.
BTW. If anybody says we are having a hot summer, it is really no record setter and we do have a new cold record in Antarctica this summer. The world weather pattern is changing alright, right on schedule, and continuing to change just as it has done in all of recorded history.
You don't have to be an oil company stooge to see the blatant falsehoods and distortions of the Global Warming alarmists. Al Gore's friends are both rich and influential and invested heavily in such things as wind farm technology and solar panels. The scientists at East Anglia were falsifying data in order to make a case for more government funding. The Third World scientists continue to make a case for us giving them everything we have and more while their intelligentsia continue to repress their own populaces.
There is a world out there that wants what we have earned. They want our money. They don't intend to work for it like we did. You have to give the oil companies this much. They work for what they get. They don't have to lie about it to get the money. This anthropological global warming stuff is just made for hucksters and fraud artists. Al Gore, his friends, Barack and his friends, and the list goes on. At least in Canada we have the privilege of having a smart Prime Minister who has been quietly shelving the whole global warming initiative that would pull money out of our pockets and out of our country. He managed to steer the last G20 away from a destructive course of action and put the global warming alarmists on the back burner.
BTW. If anybody says we are having a hot summer, it is really no record setter and we do have a new cold record in Antarctica this summer. The world weather pattern is changing alright, right on schedule, and continuing to change just as it has done in all of recorded history.
Arn
We can all cherry pick the data to suit our opinions, especially on the internet, as I've said before I'm more about using renwables to try and keep the pollution down and try and shift the balance of power in the world away from the middle east, I don't think for a minute you can totally get rid of them but it's time to try to decrease our dependence IMO.
For instance when an Oil company like BP can have a major environmental impact as they just have and still be in good shape financially it's just the cost of doing business to them. They would like to keep renewables as far into the future as possible and adding to the misinformation to suit their side is just good business for them. I'm suspicious of both sides but you can see the effects of pollution almost everywhere in nature and those who think man can't affect his environment are fooling themselves.
And of course Harper wants us to stay on Fossil Fuels what do you think the economy here and in Alberta are based on right now plus as I said during a financial crisis people are going to stick with the cheapest energy no matter the effects.
There is a world out there that wants what we have earned. They want our money. They don't intend to work for it like we did. You have to give the oil companies this much. They work for what they get. They don't have to lie about it to get the money.
Arn
Wait so a company who wants to produce clean power is some kind of evil entity who wants our money for doing nothing?? Yet, the Oil companies are doing us a favour?
So you also think the price of oil is reflective of a true supply and demand criteria?
It's regulated to keep the people happy enough with it and it helps the renewables stay in the long term. I never said they were stupid, just the opposite in fact.
I agree the public's opinion might be changing but I think it has more to do with the economy than most other factors, people tend to consider such things as less of a priority in hard economic times, look at developing nations, most are just trying to eke out a living and have no time to consider the effects on the environment or for that matter their own health and safety.
I'm sure the Oil companies would love for everyone to continue to use and increase their consumption of fossil fuels. As I've said before there were plenty of "scientists and doctors" willing to go to bat for the tabacco companies as well, doesn't mean they were right.
OK, how about a climate scientist, using REAL data that disproves all the climate models?
Originally posted by Arns85GT: BTW. If anybody says we are having a hot summer, it is really no record setter and we do have a new cold record in Antarctica this summer. The world weather pattern is changing alright, right on schedule, and continuing to change just as it has done in all of recorded history.
Like I said I could post data from scientists and bombard you with info too but you'll just say it's wrong because you choose not to believe it.
I tend to believe the majority when it comes to Climate Change and mans effect on the environment, not saying it's as dire as some might claim but as I've said I've seen enough pollution where you'd never expect it to want to at least cut down and change to something that makes more sense.
Like I said I could post data from scientists and bombard you with info too but you'll just say it's wrong because you choose not to believe it.
It's a peer-reviewed scientific paper that shows that the pro-warming computer models have gotten it WRONG. Scientific evidence, not choosing what to believe.
quote
I tend to believe the majority when it comes to Climate Change and mans effect on the environment, not saying it's as dire as some might claim but as I've said I've seen enough pollution where you'd never expect it to want to at least cut down and change to something that makes more sense.
There is no significance to a "majority" of scientists. You can line up all the scientists you want who believe the same thing, it only takes ONE to prove them wrong with science. Lindzen disproved the computer models with 20 years of REAL data. Scientific majority/consensus is meaningless, as are computer models (especially when they've been proven wrong with actual data).
When they didn't get the warming they kept screaming about, they changed the name to "climate change". Then, no matter what happened, they said "SEE! WE WERE RIGHT!" Oooookaaayyy. If a scientific theory is not disprovable, it's not a scientific theory.
quote
You know I'm only here to try and keep you honest, right?
An environmental policy expert isn't buying a new study that warns diminishing crops in Mexico caused by alleged "global warming" could force nearly seven-million Mexicans into the United States over the next 60 years.
The study published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows how researchers estimate the sensitivity of migration to climate change and predict the number of Mexicans who would migrate under a range of different climate and crop yield scenarios.
Steve Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com, calls the study "comical."
"This is a study issued by an environmental movement that is desperate to get the global-warming, cap-and-trade, cap-and-tax ball across the goal line," he points out. "So now they're trying to appeal to people who are concerned about immigration to get them on their side."
The environmental policy expert tells OneNewsNow the climate will always change -- but even with research, it is still unknown how the climate will change.
"There's no factual basis for assuming that a changing climate means even more immigration and that carbon caps equal immigration caps," he contends. "It's just ridiculous."
Milloy argues that the assumptions made in the study are a "house of cards" and "a cynical attempt" to try to split conservatives on the global-warming issue.
Microscopic marine algae called phytoplankton that produce half the world's oxygen and support most ocean life have been declining dramatically over the past century, Canadian researchers say.
"We should be very concerned … it's extremely disturbing," said Daniel Boyce, lead author of the study published Wednesday in Nature.
"Phytoplankton are the base of the marine ecosystem. It's the fuel on which it runs .… Changes in phytoplankton abundance will ultimately affect everything higher in the food chain from tiny little zooplankton all the way up to large whales, valuable fisheries and humans at the top."
Marlon Lewis, one of the co-authors of the paper, is shown here with a Secchi disk, a simple device that has been used to measure water clarity for more than 100 years. (CBC)The study found that the world is losing an average of one per cent of its phytoplankton each year, and the northern hemisphere has lost roughly 40 per cent since 1950.
Boyce, a PhD student in marine ecology at Dalhousie University in Halifax, said the decline appears linked to rising surface temperatures in the ocean.
Until now, researchers have relied almost solely on satellite images to estimate the global phytoplankton growth, and those data only go back a few decades, said Boyce.
Secchi disk The water clarity measurements used by the researchers were taken using a Secchi disk, a device invented by Jesuit priests in the 1800s, said Boyce.
It is a white disk about the size of a small dinner plate that is weighted and then lowered into the water off a ship using a rope.
Researchers keep an eye on the disk and record the depth (in metres) at which they can no longer see it. That provides a measure of the water clarity.
Murkier water has more phytoplankton in it, while clearer water has less, allowing researchers to estimate the phytoplankton concentration from the water clarity.
He and two other researchers at the university, Marlon Lewis and Boris Worm, managed to estimate phytoplankton concentrations at the surface of the ocean over the past 100 years. They did so by poring over ocean water clarity measurements collected by research ships around the world since the late 1800s using a device called a Secchi disk.
The measurements are strongly correlated with the amount of phytoplankton in the water, and give almost exactly the same results as modern measurements from satellite images.
"It appears to be very accurate," Boyce said.
Phytoplankton live close to the surface of the ocean so they have access to sunlight, which they use to make sugars through photosynthesis. In the process, they produce about half the world's oxygen and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, said Worm.
But they also need nutrients to grow, Boyce said, and those are brought up from deeper waters by mixing.
As the ocean surface gets warmer, it tends to form layers that no longer mix well with deeper waters.
"That makes the ocean more stable, which limits the amount of nutrients delivered to phytoplankton and adversely affects their growth," Boyce added.
Besides forming the basis for the food chain, phytoplankton have a large effect on the carbon cycle, and therefore the stability of the global climate, the study said.
In fact, some people have proposed adding more nutrients to ocean water to boost phytoplankton growth in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
The researchers hope their results will be a "wake-up" call and that scientists will continue to monitor global phytoplankton concentrations in coming years to see if the trend continues. In the meantime, they think more research needs to be done on the possible effects that declining phytoplankton could have on fisheries, climate and other aspects of ocean health. Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ne...mments#ixzz0vV1twTWE
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-02-2010).]
Be very suspicious. The CBC is a hotbed of anti-government, pro-leftist, pro-Gore propaganda.
The stratus of ocean temperatures is not static at all. The currents being generated from ocean vents and volcanoes as well as the currents generated by heating of the Caribbean and Indian ocean mix up the water very well. I expect the article you quote is total hogwash. It will take a bit of research, but, these are the same guys who tried to paint Polar Bears as an endangered species while their population had quadrupled. They are also the people who characterized the seal hunt as corporately driven and when it was allowe do go unchecked, the fish stocks sank dangerously low.
I'll read up on it, but, from the outset I doubt the truth of the statement.
Arn
Edit, warmer water breeds more plankton, not less
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 08-02-2010).]
Be very suspicious. The CBC is a hotbed of anti-government, pro-leftist, pro-Gore propaganda.
The stratus of ocean temperatures is not static at all. The currents being generated from ocean vents and volcanoes as well as the currents generated by heating of the Caribbean and Indian ocean mix up the water very well. I expect the article you quote is total hogwash. It will take a bit of research, but, these are the same guys who tried to paint Polar Bears as an endangered species while their population had quadrupled. They are also the people who characterized the seal hunt as corporately driven and when it was allowe do go unchecked, the fish stocks sank dangerously low.
I'll read up on it, but, from the outset I doubt the truth of the statement.
Arn
Edit, warmer water breeds more plankton, not less
It's a study from Dalhousie University. And I hate to tell you but the CBC is part of the Government so anti government is a little suspect.
It's a study from Dalhousie University. And I hate to tell you but the CBC is part of the Government so anti government is a little suspect.
You take one report funded by who knows who, and base policy on that? Fierobear has posted some good research. It is absolutely true that the summer this year in Canada is no record holder. It is also true that the Hurricane season which was touted to be a monster last year turned out to be minimal. It is also true that there is a record winter in the Antarctica this year, and, that net ice levels have increased in Antarctica since 2000. There is evidence of Global Weather change, but, there is no evidence of Global Warming. It is cooling.
Just so you know, the CBC was populated by Liberal appointees some years ago. They are still there for the most part. These Liberal appointees are no friends to the current Conservative government. In fact, if you compare news coverage between CBC and CTV and Global, you will see a clear bias in CBC coverage. CBC is funded by the Government due to an Act of Parliament, but don't be fooled, they are no friend to the current government.
It's been noticeably cooler here in my town (100 miles away, further inland). In fact, we've had dense ground fog several times, which normally doesn't happen until late fall and through the winter.
It is also true that there is a record winter in the Antarctica this year, and, that net ice levels have increased in Antarctica since 2000. There is evidence of Global Weather change, but, there is no evidence of Global Warming. It is cooling.
Well it depends on what term you choose I suppose I consider it Climate Change as Global Warming is a bit of a misnomer, in that the thought is the ocean temps are rising causing Global Weather Change as you put it.
Which ocean temp is rising? Not the North Sea, not the Antarctic ocean. Saying the oceans are warming is kind of nebulous. Warmer Atlantic ocean means more plankton and therefore more fish. Warmer Arctic Sea might mean more food sources for Polar Bears, as in more fish and more seals. But, there is no evidence it is warmer at the equator. If the hurricane season ramps up to 10-12 hurricanes this year, it might indicate this, but, nobody knows for sure. Remember, the oceans are a humongous heat sink.
Moreover all the doom and gloom about low lying countries and cities being inundated just hasn't proved to be real.
From July 1 to 15, Arctic sea ice extent declined an average of 60,500 square kilometers (23,400 square miles) per day, 22,500 square kilometers (8,690 square miles) per day slower than the 1979 to 2000 average and substantially slower than the rate of decline in May and June. Remember it is summer up there and it melts every year.
Antarctic ocean temperatures are actually falling relative year to year
