Five Hot Spots in Congress's Upcoming Climate Change Debate

Reader Comments
Back to article

lemyaskin rulezz

lemyaskin of ND 9:49PM September 22, 2009

Although it is clear that global warming has taken place it has not been established that we did it. From what I have read on the internet, global warming (and cooling) is probably from long solar cycles, so if true then there is nothing we can do but to adapt around what is inevitable. It’s like adapting to volcanoes or earthquakes. My favorite website explaining this is here.
www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
But the popular argument is anthropogenic climate change, we did it, so it can be controlled and it is our moral responsibility to do so. But if a definitive study were to take place showing climate change is caused by the sun, there would be no more studies. After that we would spend money on engineering safeguards and the climate scientists funds would dry up. The author of the following link explains this better than I. He refers to this as Big Climate which is likened to Big Tobacco.
www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/14/climate_comment/
Then there is the Petition project.
www.petitionproject.org
Here over 31,000 American scientists signed this petition and over 9000 of them have PhDs. The purpose of the petition reads as follows.
‘The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of ‘settled science’ and an overwhelming ‘consensus’ in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few ‘skeptics’ remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.
It is evident that 31,478 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not ‘a few’ Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed; it is evident that these 31,478 American scientists are not ‘skeptics.’
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.’
Think of it, if you have a nasty problem then someone comes along and wants to show you that it’s really a non-problem, wouldn’t you hear it out? We have been fretting all the doom and gloom of climate change, then comes along a large body of scientists saying that we are not the cause of global warming and it is probably driven by the sun. Wow, our problems may have easier solutions that all the expensive ones that are now being proposed in our governments. So it is so exciting that the Seattle Times has 0 articles about this. Then I read in the Seattle Times where they say they are vital in providing objective repor

Peter Churchill of WA 11:37PM April 12, 2009

Since ultimately the consumer will pay most if not all of this additional cost for energy directly or indirectly, this should not be used as a revenue stream to be spent by the federal government. Perhaps some can be used for energy technology R&D, but most should be returned to the citizens of our nation in the form of rebates to offset the higher cost to all consumers.

Scott of AL 4:51PM April 09, 2009

Let's face it; there won't be any money made by the government. All that happens is that the government has created another bureaucracy that must sustain itself. Also, for an administration that wants to return respect to science, the global warming "science" is not real solid. Just more hypocrisy.

Peggy of NY 12:57PM April 08, 2009

For the past 15 years I was convinced global warming was caused by CO2. Now I'm not so sure. It's looking more and more to be a natural phenomenon. My interest in global warming and energy policy is so great I launched www.energyplanusa.com and have spent months trying to find the 'smoking gun' that proves global warming is man-made. But the evidence is just not there. Instead I've discovered that man-made global warming theory relies on unproven computer models (similar, I'm afraid, to the ones the predicted the American economy was a perpetual motion machine) and ignores contrary evidence from hundreds of reliable sources. For instance, it's widely understood that the globe was warmer 1,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were normal, then it is today. The Vikings even grew grapes in New Foundland and named it Vinland.
I'm dismayed that my own party, the Democrats, the thinkers, have turned a scientific issue into a near-religious one where faith trumps facts. I'm also dismayed that the national press seems content with publishing hearsay, without backing up conclusions and presumptions with facts and evidence. Please, help me get at the truth. If anyone can provide the C02 smoking gun, I'd be greatly indebted.

Rmoen of NV 3:56PM April 07, 2009

Like most of what Congress does, this is just a redistribution of resources intended to alter behavior in ways the market does not do naturally. What makes me nervous about this discussion is that another common result of actions by Congress is unintended consequences.

Brad of TX 12:51PM April 07, 2009

Let's sidestep these issues altogether by looking at a carbon tax shift approach--no permits, no market, no problem.

CTF of DC 8:38AM April 07, 2009

Carbon dioxide caused global warming has not been proven. I think it should be before a government starts taxing their citizens for heat. The hot spot in the atmsophere which would prove AGW is not there. The planet has been cooling for 11 years despite rising Co2 levels. That extra Co2 has come in useful, it has increased crop yields and has caused increased forest growth across the planet. But let's forget all that lack of proof and go the way of the Europeans, freezing their citizens to death.

Eve of NY 12:50AM April 07, 2009

Les pointed rightly out, that the USA shouldn't follow the European Union. The EU made the mistake of not auctioning permissions for atmosphere toxification. In effect, the big energy companies priced the permissions in the electricity bill, so consumers had all the costs while polluters had all the profits. Tens of billions by the way.
The bottomline: not auctioning is unfair.

Felix Creutzig of CA 11:53PM April 06, 2009

Les, You have made statements that have no supporting evidence. How will an attempt to slow climate change cause a change in "freedom in America for ever"? Don't you think climate change will cause an even bigger loss of freedom? Or, are you one of these people who doesn't want to be troubled by scientific evidence?

Jack of AR 11:20PM April 06, 2009