McCaskill: I’m Going To Make ‘My Friends On The Left Very Unhappy’ On Clean Energy Legislation
McCaskill: I’m Going To Make ‘My Friends On The Left Very Unhappy’ On Clean Energy Legislation
Last month, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which aims to transition America to a clean energy economy while combating climate change. After the bill’s passage, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) tweeted that she wanted to “fix” the bill’s cap on carbon pollution because it would “unfairly punish” Missouri’s families and businesses.
Appearing on a conservative Missouri radio show this morning, McCaskill reiterated her belief that the House bill will “hurt a state like Missouri that is so coal dependent.” Asked where she was “on the cap-and-trade,” McCaskill said that her position would make her “friends on the left very unhappy“:
MCCASKILL: Well, I’m going to make people, my friends on the left, very unhappy and I’m going to make those who don’t think global warming is real very unhappy because I’m probably going to be working with a group of moderates in the middle to try to come up with a bill that doesn’t punish coal-dependent states like Missouri. We’ve got to be very careful with what we do with this legislation.
McCaskill added that she wouldn’t “vote for the version ever that was voted on last year in the Senate” and that she doesn’t “think the version that passed the House will pass the Senate in the same shape,” so she’ll work to “craft it in a way that is very gradual.” Listen here:
As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson noted after McCaskill’s initial tweet, “the cap-and-trade system the House passed fully protects states now dependent on coal, with multi-billion-dollar programs for advanced coal technology.” In fact, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), an architect of the bill, told WNYC’s Brian Lehrer on Monday that the House took the Senate’s regional concerns into consideration when they crafted the legislation:
WAXMAN: We tried to keep the Senate in mind and adopted a bill that eliminates some of the regional disparities and bad results. The Senate is particularly sensitive, when you have two senators per state, to what’s going to happen in their state. And that’s why we drafted a bill that is, wasn’t really partisan, but more bridging the regional differences and some of the partisan differences by making sure no country and no industry had to bear more of the burden and that the ratepayers, where ever they may be in this country, are protected from steep increases.
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), who represents a coal district and was very influential on the bill, is confident that the legislation doesn’t disproportionately harm coal. “My focus in the shaping of the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee was to keep electricity rates affordable and to enable utilities to continue using coal,” said Boucher. “Both of these goals have been achieved.”
Transcript:
FERGUSON: But let’s go ahead and get right to the big issues here. Obviously right now the cap-and-trade is the big thing. Now, in a state that is, you know, in a lot of ways dependent on coal, you know, there’s a lot of worry about this. You know, the current version of the bill working through the Senate, how does that, how does that you know, look to you right now? Where are you on the cap-and-trade?MCCASKILL: Well, I’m going to make people, my friends on the left, very unhappy and I’m going to make those who don’t think global warming is real very unhappy because I’m probably going to be working with a group of moderates in the middle to try to come up with a bill that doesn’t punish coal-dependent states like Missouri. We’ve got to be very careful with what we do with this legislation. For one, we need to be a leader in the world, but we don’t want to be a sucker. And if we go too far with this, all we’re going to do is chase more jobs to China and India, where they’ve been putting up coal-fired plants every ten minutes. So, I’m very conscious of the fact that Missouri businesses and Missouri families don’t have a choice as to where they get their utilities generation. It’s coming primarily from coal now and it will take a decade or longer to move to either sequestered coal or other forms of energy that will be more responsible as it relates to get out from underneath the thumb of foreign oil and reducing our carbon imprint. So, I’ll be, I won’t vote for the version ever that was voted on last year in the Senate. I would vote against that version. I don’t think the version that passed the House will pass the Senate in the same shape, so I’m going to be one of those trying to craft it in a way that is very gradual, that is not going to hurt a state like Missouri that is so coal dependent.
FERGUSON: Why is there such an immense pressure and there’s an immense urgency. Why does this, you know, the folks on your side of the isle, to be very candid, say, “we need to do this right now.” You know, we’ve, you know, there’s so many questions about the cost, which will eventually come back to the consumer. Why is there such an urgency that says we have to do this not within sometime within the next year or years, it has to be done within days or weeks. Where is that coming from?
MCCASKILL: Well, it’s coming from the science and by the way, just because the legislation is done, doesn’t mean it’s, all its provisions go into effect immediately. In fact, as it stands now, I think the support, if there is going to be enough support for the bill, it’s going to be a very gradual implementation as we move towards changing to wind and solar and other kinds of energy. But you know, keep in mind, John McCain was one of the co-sponsors of this legislation in its first iteration. I mean, he was, it was the McCain-Lieberman bill, so we had both the Republican nominee for president and the Democratic nominee for president agreeing that this is a problem that must be dealt with. And I think that one of the reasons that some are anxious to do something this year is to set the tone for Copenhagen, that occurs later this year. Where we are busy trying to use every stick and carrot imaginable to bring other countries into line with making strides in this regard. Like I said before, it’s not going to do us any good to clean up our act as it relates to the atmosphere. It’s the same atmosphere that China shares and Japan shares and India shares. Some very big industrial countries. So, we’ve got to make sure that they’re in line with us and that’s why us beginning to take a step before Copenhagen, there’s a wide beliefe that that’s going to be a spur to help us secure the kind of agreements that we need to get from China and India primarily.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hey Senator lookie here
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Peace
July 8th, 2009 at 6:51 pmRight. Because only people on the left will be affected by global climate change.
PEACE
July 8th, 2009 at 6:57 pmGOOD ON YA MCCASKILL…..YOU’LL SEE THE RESULTS OF YOUR ADVOCACY AT THE NEXT ELECTION.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:03 pmMs.McCaskill, you have no friends on the left, and if you call your Republican buddies friends you’re in a sorry state. I send you my deepest sypathies.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:08 pmThe earth is getting colder, not warmer. many of these solutions will lead to an Ice Age.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:08 pmProgressives don’t care about Climate Change. This is just a political cause to beat Republicans with. Just be honest about it.
I wonder how close to a tipping point we are. Will the arctic be ice free in the summers in 5-10 yrs? Open ocean collects a heck of alot more energy then ice. How will that affect the Iceland ice pack? Something to think about. Or try to ignore.
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Peace again
July 8th, 2009 at 7:14 pmOK McCaskill is about to be put into the dingbat broad category!
July 8th, 2009 at 7:14 pmI’m with Claire on this one, not because I don’t want clean air- I want Private Option health care.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:15 pmIf Pelosi, Obama and the Dems. are serious about health care, they need to shelve this Energy bill for a while and to stop talking about a second stimulus-let’s first spend what is already allotted.
Sharky it’s ok, I guess your athoritor will be respected after the rapture……
KMAMF
July 8th, 2009 at 7:17 pmA bit off topic but really important. Obama has announced he is going to cut $155 BILLION from Medicare Medicaid. If you don’t have a public health option then you have no choice but to buy into the HMO mandates. The insurance lobby has won Big Time.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:17 pmAmerica needs clean, cheap energy — not clean, expensive energy. I’m a Democrat who thinks the House overplayed its hand. Daily I read editorials, comments and letters-to-the-editor from all over the nation. Support for cap and trade is evaporating. Whereas a week ago it was maybe 2-to-1 against cap and trade, opinion now seems to be 8-to-1 against. The Senate will be wise to heed the overwhelming lack of public support and stop this disastrous legislation from passing into law.
Everything about the cap and trade bill is wrong. It will make energy more expensive — possibly big-time expensive. It will enrich a new class of financial speculator. Hundreds of lobbyists had a hand in it. Cap and trade could also drive-out manufacturing of every description. Plus, it’s worse than a tax because only 15% of the proceeds from auctioned permits go into our national treasury. And the kicker? We’ll never even know if cap and trade worked.
– Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com
July 8th, 2009 at 7:22 pmBy “hurting her state” she means upsetting Big Coal. If she cared about the people she would do the right thing. Sounds like a financial decision more about her well being than looking out for the people. We will remember next election!
July 8th, 2009 at 7:24 pmWe must make the cost of selling out to big business more costly and doing the right thing being rewarded with votes.
Dumb move Sen. McCaskill, wake up and realize we are watching
She was on a “Reicht” Wing program so anything to beat the left up on would make the “Reicht” Wing show host happy was her goal.
But moreover she is shill,she was well prepared to continue to foster the wing-nuts bogus claims about cap &trade.Tool comes to mind,she really should be ashamed of herself.Another willing to foster dis-information to look good.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:24 pmSharky Says:
July 8th, 2009 at 7:36 pmThe earth is getting colder, not warmer. many of these solutions will lead to an Ice Age
gosh, you’re right, I was a believer in global warming this morning, and it kept getting hotter all day, but now, it’s starting to get colder!!!!!
Sharky Says:
The earth is getting colder, not warmer.
Why do all of your arguments require belief in the exact opposite of what’s provably true? Why do you even bother?
July 8th, 2009 at 7:36 pmI will send McMoney to beat McCaskill out of McOffice.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:39 pmAmericasBack
Yep that whole positive feedback problem.
Less ice = faster melting of whats left. I’m ret. science teacher and been following this. Hanson sounds about right.
When Iceland really gets going Washington will look like Venice in a few years.
Peace
July 8th, 2009 at 7:39 pmElBruce,
July 8th, 2009 at 7:42 pmignoring that drop at the end of your chart? The Earth was warming, but when the Ice caps began melting it poured fresh water into the Oceans. This slows the Gulf Stream which, cools down Temperatures.
Thanks for proving my point!
Sharky Says:
ElBruce,
ignoring that drop at the end of your chart? The Earth was warming, but when the Ice caps began melting it poured fresh water into the Oceans. This slows the Gulf Stream which, cools down Temperatures.
Thanks for proving my point!
You honestly don’t understand much of anything, do you?
The trend has continued to rise, regardless of occasional bumps on the line. Jeebus, get at least a junior college education before you write another word.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:46 pmSharky Says:
ElBruce,
ignoring that drop at the end of your chart?
The one that goes up and down every year with a massive 50-year rising trend? No, I’m not ignoring it at all. Here, let’s look again. A slight drop at the end of a massive increase doesn’t negate the massive increase.
.
Sharky Says:
The Earth was warming, but when the Ice caps began melting it poured fresh water into the Oceans. This slows the Gulf Stream which, cools down Temperatures.
So what you’re saying is that global warming will be temporarily slowed as we lose the ice caps. OK. So what happens once they’re gone?
July 8th, 2009 at 7:49 pmThousands of respected scientists from all over the world, many Nobel Prize winners, and so many from our own nation, are quite concerned about the depletion of the ozone layer, resulting in higher temperatures globally.
I really don’t care what holy roller preachers and sunday school teachers have to say on this subject. Like so many important issues today, this is way over their level of competence.
Dominionist evangelicals in the U.S. have found a high school physics teacher or two to buttress their nonsense – and it is just that, nonsense.
The Senator had better be careful about alienating the intelligent voters in her state. The repiggies have no use for her, given her role in the Obama campaign.
Why would she want to play to the repiggies?
July 8th, 2009 at 7:55 pmIt’s called representation, voting according to the lifestyle and interests of your state. Even if McCaskill is to the left on on environment issues, she figures she’d be representing herself and not Missouri by supporting the bill. As Missouri’s senator, it’s not a tough call.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:59 pmPissedOffVeteran,
Not true, If Iceland were to melt, the amount of Fresh Water would slow up Ocean currents. This would lead to a drop in Temperatures and Iceland would come back, but bigger.
Do you deny that the end result of global warming is an Ice Age?
If so you are full of it.
I know this is a cool topic and it is a good weapon to beat up Republicans.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:59 pmElBruce,
\Nope when the Icecaps melt, it will collapse the temperatures due to the slowing of the gulf stream. AN Ice Age will ensue.
We are heading for an Ice Age, not a continued rise in temps.
The solution is Alternative clean energy, not the Cap N Trade scam or using this as a political weapon. That is the problem, you are not telling the whole story.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:03 pmFirst, Sharky, get a clue. Where are you getting your facts? The Discovery Institute? Sounds like you are a follower of the “intelligent design” sham too!
Second, it’s haard to believe that a bill could be watered down any more than the one passed by the House. In addition to many repubs, there were a large number of progressive dems that voted against it and only arm twisting by Obama got it passed. Now McCaskill and others want to render cap and trade even more useless than it already is.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:04 pmThe current push for so-called “cap and trade” is NOT based upon science! The science simply does not support the theory that CO2 is driving global average temperatures.
Let’s examine why. From about the end of WWII until 1975, global temperatures declined. From about 1975 until 1998, temperatures were on the rise. From 1998 until now, however, global temperatures have stopped rising and are actually in the beginning stage of a DECLINE. Folks, you just can’t argue with the evidence!
There is a lot of other evidence as well that clearly has put the lie to the “global warming” theory that has been peddled as “settled science” by environmentalists and certain politicians who have their own agenda.
The President keeps reiterating that his administration is making a break from the past in that his initiatives are going to be based upon SCIENCE! Well then, why is it that he is pushing so hard for “cap and trade” when science doesn’t support it?
There are several schools of thought on this: economic and political. One is that there are a number of prominent Democrats and others who are heavily invested in the upcoming carbon trading scheme that will require “cap and trade” to be a reality. These folks stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars at OUR EXPENSE. The second is power; specifically the iron-fisted power the government can wield to control every aspect of our lives. We all know the left is all about power and will use any opportunity to increase their hold on it and consolidate the mechanisms of control into law.
The bottom line is this legislation will do NOTHING to reduce global temperatures and will actually produce a large amount of economic PAIN for no GAIN. People who say the effect of this legislation on the economy will be small are either LYING or they are not presenting a full and complete picture of the severe ramifications a lot of clear-thinking people are raising the alarm about!
There is the very likely scenario that this legislation will destroy millions more jobs than it creates and increase the cost of EVERYTHING in our economy to a much higher level than the proponents would like you to believe!
It’s amazing to me that so many people in this country are willing to swallow this “cap and trade” nonsense hook, line and sinker! Many people seem to think that our President and members of Congress are smarter than the rest of us, so we should just shut up and let this thing go through.
Well folks, I’m not one of them!
July 8th, 2009 at 8:05 pmRmoen,
Great post!
July 8th, 2009 at 8:08 pmEffing idiots. The Earth has not been cooling over the last ten years. The hottest year ever was 1998. The temps since then have still been warmer than the years before ‘98. In fact, the ten hottest years on record all occurred in the last twelve years.
During that time CO2 has gone up about 4%. Ice shelves have collapsed and glaciers melted at a faster rate than anyone predicted. Dead zones have appeared in the worlds oceans. Coral reefs have died due to warmer water and acidification of the Earth’s oceans.
None of these facts are disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing. In fact. Every single voice of dissent, including Sen. McCaskill , is paid by the energy industry. Every single one.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:11 pm…Actually, I’m wrong. Yes, I’m wrong. even worse than that, I have intentionally tried to deceive you all. sorry
July 8th, 2009 at 8:14 pmpoliticscorner,
Nope Try this.
AmericasBack,
July 8th, 2009 at 8:14 pmDid you ever read about the Little Ice Age? Well it ended around 1850, so of course Temperatures increased. Now they have stopped and declined, the last 9 years.
The Earth was warmer 2000 years ago and people didn’t complain back them.
This is just a political issue at this point. That is why many don’t take it serious. If it was depoliticized and analyzed fairly, we would realize Temps rise and fall. Pollution must be cut back, I am 100% with that. However developing newer technologies is the solution, not Cap and Trade which only benefits speculators and doesn’t address the issue.
And Rmoan, your post sucked. Really.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:15 pmpete,
The Temperatures have gone down, Ask yourself why? It is because melting Ice is pushing temps down. If enough Ice melts then you get an Ice Age.
Hey the earth was warmer 1000 years ago, why did no one complain then?
July 8th, 2009 at 8:17 pmWhat about the little Ice Age that lasted from 1300-1850?
Explain that?
Sharky, please try to educate yourself before you take up a subject like climate change. Spend some time reading from people who work in the field of climate change, go check out Real Climate.com and read what scientists who work in the field have to say, then get back to us.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:17 pmWell. I suppose that all that cold water sounds like a good thing. To an idiot.
The problem with all that cold, fresh, water is that it still serves to destabilize ecosystems. What happens when ecosystems collapse? Starvation. Who starves first? The top of the food chain. Who’s the top of the food chain? People.
And that doesn’t even mention that as many as a billion people will run out of fresh water in the next 30 years.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:20 pmThat’s right Sharky. We know this because we take our cue’s from Fox News and honest people like Rush. They know science better than the scientist, right Sharky?
Although, I must admit, some times their data does seem a little shaky. You don’t think that they could be taking advantage of our lower thinking skills do you Sharky?
July 8th, 2009 at 8:20 pmTim Vaculick,
July 8th, 2009 at 8:23 pmI don’t like Rush Limbaugh, but yeah I listen to all he says. How dare we question Progressives, that should not be allowed!
Sharky.
I’m afraid that you are so filled with politically motivated misconceptions that I find it hard to respond. But I’ll try.
1. Melting ice does not cause Ice Ages.
2. It was not warmer 1,000 years ago.
3. The little ice age wasn’t caused by greenhouse effect so, it’s irrelevant.
4. The assertion that it’s been cooling since ‘98 is false.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
July 8th, 2009 at 8:25 pmpete,
July 8th, 2009 at 8:26 pmLook at the dips after 98 on Chart, it proves my point. Keep posting that chart!
AmericasBack Says:
timmeh …wtf is wrong with you boy? Have you lost your mind?
Not timmeh, but the parody troll that was around earlier.
Note the last part of the name: ick rather than ik.
timmeh is going to track the parody troll down and sic a lawyer on him. Apparently he’s going to get the IP address from Think Progress.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:31 pmNo. It doesn’t prove your point, Sharky. At least, not to anyone with any scientific or mathematical acumen. You will note that the “dips” are still above pre-1998 levels and are way above the average. The long range trend is still upwards at an alarming rate.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:32 pmI’m sorry Sharky, I’m turning us in. We both work for corporate energy. NOOOOoooooooo! What is happening to me???? Its like that Jim Carrey movie where he can’t lie! help!
I’m going to go suck my thumb. bye bye everyone! I love you all! Keep fighting the good fight against liars like me and Sharky. If the Young Republican comes around, tell him I’m gay for him! Love and Kisses!
July 8th, 2009 at 8:34 pmOil lobbyist is funding those pockets.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:36 pmpete,
July 8th, 2009 at 8:38 pmActually no the dip matches 1995, so that blows your 98 theory out the water.
The point I’m making is that this should not be a political issue.
This could be solved by promoting alternative energies like Fuel Cells, Natural Gas, Clean coal, Wind, Solar and Nuclear. It’s time for oil to go!
I live in her state of Mizzery, and I voted for her in 2006. If she keeps siding with the coal and energy companies, then she won’t get my vote in 2012.
The way Obama is pandering to the right, and now Clair McCaskill, I’m not sure there will be anyone on the ballot I can vote for.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:39 pmHey, I must be striking a nerve because some numb-nuts is attempting to spoof me, but without success.
Last refuge of the desperate.
I am and will always be Tim VACULIK
July 8th, 2009 at 8:43 pmAmericasBack Says:
You know Pete, I don’t know if it’s any use.
I don’t do it for the benefit of trolls. I just happen to think it’s important to refute their BS on this subject because we, as a species, have wasted far too much time arguing about whether global climate change is happening. It’s time to start deciding what to do about it.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:43 pmRepugs instead of polar bears should be going extinct.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:47 pmSharky Says:
Do you deny that the end result of global warming is an Ice Age?
End result of warming… ice… yeah, I’ll deny that.
By the way, how did an increase in greenhouse gases work out for Venus?
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
The science simply does not support the theory that CO2 is driving global average temperatures.
You mean the science demonstrating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the chart showing a massive increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the past 100 years, or the chart showing a massive parallel increase in global temperatures over the past 100 years? Basically you’re saying that all science is wrong.
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
From about the end of WWII until 1975, global temperatures declined. From about 1975 until 1998, temperatures were on the rise. From 1998 until now, however, global temperatures have stopped rising and are actually in the beginning stage of a DECLINE. Folks, you just can’t argue with the evidence!
But apparently you can. Here, let me link the relevant chart for the 4th time, since you seem to have pretended it didn’t exist.
.
Sharky Says:
Look at the dips after 98 on Chart, it proves my point.
The teeny tiny dip at the end? Let’s use an inverse analogy. If the stock market suffered a massive crash during a presidential election, then ticked up slightly within range of normal daily fluctuation and then one candidate went on the air and said “the fundamentals of our economy are strong,” would that help their campaign or make them sound like a clueless idiot?
Similarly, a massively rising trend with a slight downward tick at the end within normal fluctuation is still a chart of a massively rising trend.
The only point you’re “proving” is just how intellectually unscrupulous your side can be.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:47 pmpete,
You need to understand and do a little research on CO2 and its relationship to global average temperatures.
Increases in CO2 FOLLOW increases in temperatures – not the other way around! All the evidence shows this.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:52 pmFolks, it’s statistics 101.
Correlation does not prove causation.
And it this case, we don’t even have good correlation! There is ample evidence that global average temps correlate better with the sun’s activity!
July 8th, 2009 at 8:55 pmNot this time, Timmeh. This time it’s the CO2 driving the temperature rise. Of course, there’s never been a constantly increasing permanent CO2 source like we humans have provided.
It is true that in past events CO2 has lagged. The current theory is that temperature rises resulted in systemic collapse which then freed up CO2. The current event is not the same.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:59 pmDenialist out in force. They’re a riot.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:00 pmDon’t engage in debate with them, their brains are incapable of following a logical argument complete with facts.
I wonder how they’ll be feeling a few years from now when the worse case global warming catastrophes come to pass.
ElBruce,
Well, it’s true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, BUT how prevalent is it in relation to other greenhouse gases and how big an effect does it have?
Just because CO2 levels have risen for PART of the time global temps have risen means exactly nothing. It doesn’t prove anything.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:00 pmCheck the link again, Timmeh. Solar output is also at a low. Depending on what is specifically measured, it’s at anywhere from a 40-100 year low. So, while the temps have been going up, solar output has been going down.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:02 pmCO2 is an insulating gas, right?
So – the more of it, the more insulation?
And if we are creating a hole in the ozone with the burning of fossil fuel, then more solar radiation (heat) makes it to the Earth?
And since the Earth is insulated, it would hold in the heat?
Out of that, you get the Earth is cooling?
Ghaaawwww Damn.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:02 pmPete,
Do you know that human activity accounts for only .11% of the miniscule 2% of CO2 in the atmosphere!
Yeah, we’re having a big effect all right!
July 8th, 2009 at 9:04 pmTim Vaculik Says:
pete,
You need to understand and do a little research on CO2 and its relationship to global average temperatures.
Increases in CO2 FOLLOW increases in temperatures – not the other way around! All the evidence shows this.
All the evidence does not show this, timmeh.
Get someone to read it to you.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:04 pmAmericasBack,
Yes, I do care. What I care about most, however is the truth. If I believed the earth was in danger of catastrophic climate change I would be right there on the front lines.
Are you aware of the predictions about global food shortages by 2050? Are you aware that increasing CO2 stands to BENEFIT the earth’s capacity to produce enough food in the future?
If I an many others are right, attempts to REDUCE global CO2 levels without a valid scientific reason to do so could greatly exacerbate the coming food production shortage!
July 8th, 2009 at 9:13 pmFolks,
BBL… gotta get a haircut for an important meeting tomorrow
July 8th, 2009 at 9:14 pmBut Timmeh. All of the CO2 increase in the last 150 years or so, is directly attributable to the twin causes of CO2 emissions and deforestation.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:14 pmI like the new Timmeh better.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:16 pmSparky is another example of why home schooling should be outlawed.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:16 pmpete,
What I’m saying is that rising CO2 levels aren’t a problem! The climate models environmentalists themselves try to use are UNABLE to prove any correlation between rising CO2 levels and global temps!
July 8th, 2009 at 9:17 pmDoodleNoodle,
There’s only ONE Timmeh, heh heh
July 8th, 2009 at 9:17 pmBut Timmeh. Atmospheric CO2 isn’t a significant limiting factor for plant growth. Water and soil nutrients are the important ones.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:19 pmI have a question. If CO2 is the culprit, why are other planets heating up as well? This includes planets with a lot more CO2 than we have.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:19 pmTim Vaculik Says:
pete,
What I’m saying is that rising CO2 levels aren’t a problem! The climate models environmentalists themselves try to use are UNABLE to prove any correlation between rising CO2 levels and global temps!
Just like last night, timmeh will run away rather than respond to cited data with any citations of his own.
Get it through your noggin, timmeh: no one hear is convinced by the sound of your voice, no matter how often you repeat your opinions BECAUSE YOU NEVER HAVE ANY FACTS!
July 8th, 2009 at 9:21 pmI can’t even argue with that kind of misconception, Timmeh. EVERY climate model shows a correlation between CO2 and temps.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:22 pmPete,
When I have time I’ll come back with some links to scientific studies that show the effect of increases in CO2 concentration with all other factors held constant.
The results in plant growth are dramatic.
I’ll be back in a little while
July 8th, 2009 at 9:23 pmThe only planet with more CO2 is venus and I don’t think there’s been any significant deviation in it’s temperatures. The data that shows Mars heating up is inconclusive. And, the Earth is unique and other planets are poor models for our planet.
The two obvious differences are liquid water and life. There’s no facsimile for either one on any other body in the solar system.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:26 pmTim Vaculik Says:
I have a question. If CO2 is the culprit, why are other planets heating up as well? This includes planets with a lot more CO2 than we have.
timmeh has a high capacity for memorizing wingnut talking points, but no capacity at all for providing data or real analysis. When has timmeh ever provided facts?
July 8th, 2009 at 9:30 pmCO2 only increases plant growth when they are at the limits of water and nutrients. Even then, the CO2 would have to be at much higher levels. If we added enough CO2 to enhance plant growth we would, probably, be hot enough to eliminate liquid water.
In short. The argument that CO2 is “good for plants” is utter BS. About the only person I’ve heard say that with a straight face is Crazy Shelly Bachmann. And she’s so effing stupid she doesn’t deserve notice on any scientific subject.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:31 pmWhere is all the extra food going to come from? There is only so much land area that can be used for farming. And, you might want to consider all extra tons of material that make it into the atmosphere while burning fossil fuels and the effect that those additional particles have on precipitation or lack thereof.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:35 pmI forgot to mention that no other planet, or any other body I’m aware of, has a steadily increasing level of atmospheric CO2. That makes them invalid for the purpose of modeling the climate on Earth.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:35 pmTimmy:
I am going to bet you never took any college courses in advanced science.
When a climate scientist examines temperature data, they don’t look at yearly variations, but rather MOVING AVERAGES and then apply a statistical test of significance.
For climate change, the moving averages must be over a long enough period of time to remove yearly fluctuations which may be natural fluctuations or anamolies.
Do you have any temperature data that has been produced using moving averages and has a statistical test shown that these variations are insignificant?
If not, then once again you are blowing smoke out of your roid afflicted a$$.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:41 pmReggie Says:
Timmy:
I am going to bet you never took any college courses in advanced science.
It’s worse than that. He, apparently, depends on FAUX and Reichradio for his “data”.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:43 pmWhy bother? Global warming isn’t even happening.
Global warming is a fraud.
You’re on the opposite side of scienceMore than 700 scientists have gone on record disagreeing with the U.N., which is a tidy 13 times as many who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:45 pmmarwick Says:
Read my comment # 91 which will explain that what you posted is useless bunk.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:47 pmpete Says:
marwick isn’t any better than Tim, his source is the Orange County Register.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:49 pmYOU’RE LIARS. GLOBAL WARMING IS A FRAUD.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:51 pmYou’re global warming religion is dying. The Heat God has abandoned you.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:52 pmIn the short term oceans may become locally cooler because of the ice that melted and flowed into the oceans in the form of cooler water.
In order for the ice to have melted, it must have absorbed heat and everyone knows that energy cannot be destroyed and that energy is still stored in the water.
Answer me one question, why have almost all the worlds alpine glaciers retreated in an unprecedented matter in the last fifty years?
July 8th, 2009 at 10:01 pmAmericasBack, I’ve run across the OCR a few times. I would be deeply ashamed to use them as a source.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:03 pmAlso. I haven’t seen a comprehensive list of the alleged 700 dissenters. The one’s I have seen fall into three categories.
1. Energy industry employees. By far the largest group of scientists.
2. Religious crackpots.
3. Republican political figures.
I might also add that there’s not a single nationally or internationally prominent scientific body that refutes the theory of human induced climate change. The dissenters are either lone wolves or members of political/religious groups.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:16 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Well, it’s true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, BUT how prevalent is it in relation to other greenhouse gases and how big an effect does it have?
I’m not sure exactly. Hint: the answer shouldn’t be “nothing to see here, don’t worry about it, everything will be just fine!”
DEM: Hey, you’re driving really close to the edge of the cliff there…
GOP: No I’m not!
DEM: Seriously, you may want to turn, you’re just inches away from…
GOP: If I were driving over the cliff we’d be falling to our deaths! Since we’re not falling, I’m nowhere near the cliff!
DEM: If you could just turn a little the other way…
GOP: The cliff is a myth!
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
The climate models environmentalists themselves try to use are UNABLE to prove any correlation between rising CO2 levels and global temps!
Both go up together. That’s pretty much the definition of the word “correlation.” Merely asserting the opposite of the facts does not count as disproving the facts. It doesn’t even count as argumentation, in the grown-up sense of the term.
.
Tim Vaculik Says:
Correlation does not prove causation.
True. To demonstrate a causal link between two correlated phemonenon such as rising CO2 levels and rising global temperature, you’d have to postulate some kind of causal mechanism… such as CO2 being a greenhouse gas, for instance.
.
marwick Says:
Why bother? Global warming isn’t even happening.
This is the fifth time I’m posting this chart in this thread, and counting. Amazing.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:21 pmpete,
You are just spouting nonsense now, hoping others here will think you actually know something.
Your post at #103 takes the cake.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:25 pmProduce one scientific body not funded by the energy industry, the GOP, or a religious group that disputes anthropogenic climate change, Timmeh. I won’t wait up.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:32 pmElBruce Says:
That is a excellent chart and I noticed it used 5 year moving averages.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:33 pmPete, I think you need to see these two links. Marwick, if you are still here, it’s a good site for your argument.
Get back to me after you have seen the truth. I rest my case. God why am I so smart?
July 8th, 2009 at 10:37 pmAmericasBack Says:
So Pete, they’re all PAID dissenters? Imagine that.
Well. I wouldn’t say that they are all paid. Some are motivated by religious or political dogma.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:38 pmNeither of your links work, Timmeh.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:41 pmTim Vaculick at #111,
It’s already clear to everyone here that you are not me. You don’t have anything to add; in fact all your posts so far have been attempts to make people think your posts are mine. You are a spoofer, nothing more.
TIM VACULIK
July 8th, 2009 at 10:42 pmApparently you’re not smart enough to post links that actually work. I clicked them and received 404 error codes for both of them.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:42 pmTim Vaculick at #111,
I flag all your posts for attempted spoofing wherever you post so do us all a favor and get lost.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:45 pmI don’t see much difference, Timmeh. Though, if you have been namejacked, I hope you email the staff at TP and put an end to it.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:46 pmReggie,
He’s a spoofer just trying to make people think his posts are mine. He’s been flagged.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:46 pmThe funny thing is that all you believe in is opinion. You ignore the actual scientists.
Here, a link that’s not the OC. I’ll bold the scientists for you, since I know you get confused easily.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
We’re still waiting for the studies that show an increase in CO2, in the absence of increased sunlight, soil nutrients, and water, will increase food production.
I’ll let you off the hook on producing an accredited scientific body that denies global climate change. There aren’t any.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:52 pmmarwick Says:
The funny thing is that all you believe in is opinion. You ignore the actual scientists.
Here, a link that’s not the OC. I’ll bold the scientists for you, since I know you get confused easily.
I know that when my car breaks, I take it to a CPA. And when I’m feeling sick, I call a plumber. Because I wouldn’t ever want to get information from someone who actually worked in the relevant field — they might have an agenda!
None of the people you highlight work as climatologists! Inhofe’s stupid list has been debunked over and over. Many of the “scientists” on the list have even asked to have their names removed. Come up with a list of 700 climatologists and someone might listen.
Meanwhile, I’ve got to look up a good paleontologist to fix the dishwasher.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:57 pmmarwick, you’re an idiot. Your link is to an effing op/ed. I don’t need op/eds. I don’t link op/eds. I don’t even need to read the conclusions by the scientists in the field. I’m quite capable of digesting scientific data and even understand the math.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:59 pmMarwick links to the antichrist Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Steet Journal. Why can’t you link to peer reviewed papers published by climate scientist in scientific journals
July 8th, 2009 at 11:03 pmmarwick Says:
The funny thing is that all you believe in is opinion. You ignore the actual scientists.
Your link named 4 of them, and claimed there were 54 more.
Here, let me do your job for you. There are 39 on that list, with citations and details on each of their opinions.
It’s still a teeny-tiny minority of the scientific community.
In response I have to list entire academies at a time because listing each scientist who agrees in anthropogenic climate change would break the Intertubes.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:19 pmAmericasBack Says:
Ya know, it’s funny folks (and definitely not in a ha ha way), when it’s too late to reverse man-made climate change, the people like timmeh and marsick won’t be anywhere to be found. …kinda like the people who voted for bush (Twice!!).
When the last Republican dies on the flaming cinder that was once Earth, the last words before his lungs give out will be: “no one could have predicted…”
July 8th, 2009 at 11:22 pmIt’s as if you never progressed beyond a 4th-grade education. The planet has been cooling despite an increase in CO2. I doubt you’re really that dumb.
So it must be about something else…
Ah, raising taxes. That’s what this is really about. Shame on you for hiding behind a lie to get at people’s wallets.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:11 amSharky Says:
marwick Says:
Tim Vaculik Says:
———-
These folks are absolutely amazing. You could shove them off of a cliff and they would deny the existence of gravity all the way up to the moment they hit the ground.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:23 ammarwick Says:
It’s as if you [... blah blah blah... blah blah blah... ]for hiding behind a lie to get at people’s wallets.
______________
Sheesh… what the H was that supposed to mean? It didn’t make the least bit of sense… little coherency problem?
July 9th, 2009 at 12:23 amGlobal warming is a fraud. – David Deming, geophysicist and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:25 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deming
Sexual Harassment Charges
In February 2000, Deming wrote a letter criticizing Yale University student Joni Kletter’s February 18, 2000 syndicated article on gun control published in the University of Oklahoma’s student newspaper, The Oklahoma Daily – a letter for which the professor was charged for sexual harassment. In her article, Kletter had claimed that “easy access to a handgun allows everyone in this country…to quickly and easily kill as many random people as they want.”
In his rebuttal, Deming used Kletter’s own argument against her, stating[50]
“I just want to point out that Kletter’s ‘easy access’ to a vagina enables her to ‘quickly and easily’ have sex with ‘as many random people’ as she wants. Her possession of an unregistered vagina also equips her to work as a prostitute and spread venereal diseases. Let’s hope Kletter is as responsible with her equipment as most gun owners are with theirs.”
______________
Hmmm… for such an ***cough “educated” man… we’ve now discovered at least two subjects of which Deming appears to be clueless… weather and sex… you keep tryin’ Marwick…
July 9th, 2009 at 12:42 amAh! David Deming. A very unpleasant man who can’t seem to avoid controversy. How many scientific bodies accept his conclusion? Zero. Has his theory passed peer review? Nope.
And? The planet has not been cooling.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:45 amBTW. That last link is, once again, not a peer reviewed scientific study. It’s another political opinion blog.
I find it interesting that the trolls keep saying “ignore the politics” when they quote political opinion pieces rather than peer reviewed work by accredited scientists and scientific body.
I guess they don’t have much choice. There aren’t any peer reviewed sources that fit their politics. Just kooks, blowhards, and crackpots. Considering that they vote for the same, I guess it’s not surprising.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:50 ampete Says:
There aren’t any peer reviewed sources that fit their politics. Just kooks, blowhards, and crackpots. Considering that they vote for the same, I guess it’s not surprising.
___________
Let u also take note of the fact that Deming is a geophysicist, which means he knows a lot about… oil… but apparently didlysquat about weather… or women… for that matter.
Who knows… mebbe Deming truly believes a vagina is indeed a deadly weapon…
July 9th, 2009 at 1:03 am.
Dear marwick,
Your shoe is untied…
… Ha! Made you look.
What does gullible mean?
When I look it up, all it tells me is marwick.
What’s that all about?
.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:50 amTRoS,
July 9th, 2009 at 1:52 amLong time no see for a while…
… Or have I been missin’ you?
She’s right, you know. If saving the planet means being unfair to Missouri, it’s just not worth it.
I used to think this woman was one of the few remaining senators with a brain. You live and learn.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:12 ammarwick Says:
It’s as if you never progressed beyond a 4th-grade education. The planet has been cooling despite an increase in CO2. I doubt you’re really that dumb.
I’m now posting this chart for the sixth time in this thread. Either take notice of it or stop just blanket-asserting that the planet is cooling.
.
marwick Says:
Ah, raising taxes. That’s what this is really about. Shame on you for hiding behind a lie to get at people’s wallets.
I know it’s a basic tenet of your dogma, and so it’s almost antireligious of me to challenge it… but why the hell do you think we liberals actually like paying higher taxes? That just doesn’t make any damn sense.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:05 ammarwick Says:
Yeah its the Wall St Journal OPINION page. Are you REALLY this stupid?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:36 amBefore we all go the way of the triceratops I think we ought to build a monument for whatever creature comes after us, perhaps a cross between cockroaches and Kieth Richards. It would be letters written a hundred feet high on the wall of th Grand canyon saying. We could have saved it but it would have cost too much money
July 9th, 2009 at 5:43 amMs.McKaskill doesn’t seem to have a solution to the pollution and energy issue before us. Here’s what we need to do. We need to build wind farms around every Statehouse in the country and a huge, mega-wind farm along the entire beltway in D.C. So much hot air escapes from those areas and it simply wasted. If we can harness that otherwise useless and sole product of most politicians they can become productive members of society. For many of them it would be the first time in their lives that they have produced anything. Let’s put the pols to work!
Ye gods!
July 9th, 2009 at 10:53 amMcCaskill may be right about this Cap & Trade bill. It will create a massive new market on Wall Street.
Matt Taibbi of RollingStone Magazine has a great article titled: ‘The Great American Bubble Machine’ which tells how Goldman Saks has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine
Goldman Saks and other powerful Wall St. people are behind the Cap & Trade bill because they will make mega profits off of it. And for those who think it’s bull just remember Goldman Saks gave to democrats 4 to 1 over republicans before the last two election knowing the democrats would take over both houses and the White House.
These parasites bid their time and choose their scams carefully in a way that they know the party in control will pass them. They along with the bankers and republican Phil Gramm did this in 1999 & 2000 when they pushed for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.
The Cap & Trade bill if passed will not only cost we the people more on energy but it will also indirectly raise the price of food and fuel.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:59 amI should add, I agree we need new legislation for environment protections and we must move forward with green technology and new energy technology but this Cap & Trade bill has Goldman Saks behind it which makes me nervous! If passed, this new massive market will turn into the next big bubble.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:04 amD O U C H E BAG!
July 9th, 2009 at 11:05 amAlthough I will agree with one of the comments made earlier. It seems liberals are okay with paying higher taxes for the good of the people, the country, the planet, while republicans want to keep all of their money and piss on the rest of the people, the country and our planet.
I guess that’s what THERE bible teaches them!
The Republican 10 commandments:
1-Thou shall forgive every republican politician or media personality who commits adultery, pedophilia or gets busted for doing illegal drugs.
2-Thou shall support war.
3-Thou shall be good stewards of the corporations.
4-Thou shall hate and despise anyone with different skin pigment.
5-Thou shall hate gays who threaten traditional marriage and are a threat to Western Civilization.
6-Thou shall pick and choose the Holy scriptures to twist and bend to fit their personal agenda.
7-Thou shall not care for or about those less fortunate.
8-Thou shall repeat the mantra’s “Greed is good” and “Money trumps peace” over and over and over.
9-Thou shall protect, honor and echo the lies of their parties elected officials.
10-Thou shall kill anyone who disagrees with them but never, ever kill the unborn child.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:56 amThere are three planets in our solar system that have CO2 in their atmospheres. The atmosphere on two of them is mainly CO2.
Now take a look at the average and min-max surface temperatures:
Venus: 855 degF Avg. (67 mill mi. from the Sun)
Earth: -128 degF to 136 degF (91 mill mi. from the Sun)
Mars: -200 degF to 32 degF (128 mill mi. from the Sun)
Now tell me again the effect CO2 is having?
July 9th, 2009 at 8:10 pmTim:
CO2 is not the only thing that affects a planet’s atmosphere. These planets atmospheres vary in many other ways. For example, we have an ozone layer and they don’t. Well, the temperature spikes at the ozone layer and that has some kind of effects that I don’t remember any more.
We need to focus on Earth. It’s our planet and the only one we have. If we screw things up here, there’s no where else to go.
So, if you don’t mind, please stick with the real science, not your little invention.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:20 pmThank you .. admin
Sesli Chat Sesli Sohbet
July 10th, 2009 at 3:37 pmSesli Chat Sesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat Sesli sohbet