American Majority Mistrusts Copenhagen Climate Change Proposal

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I got no such Tax Credit on my heater installed in 2008. That 2005 Energy Act was not renewed in 2007. The new House speaker in 2007 didn't bring things to the floor on merit, only on political expediency, like the health care bill. The Energy Act of 2005 finally got renewed in 2009 as part of the gargantuan stimulus package. It's just a tiny bit of it, but guess which administration gets the credit and who doesn't. That part of the 2005 Energy Act is good for getting money to flow in the private sector. Why was it on hold from 2007-2009 as real help could have then occurred to prevent the recession from getting as big as it has? Executive fiat in the Legislative branch is not cute.

Me Too 1:20AM December 20, 2009

Remember the media's love affair with Supreme Court Justice nominee So-to-my-yore? I think the metrosexual Matt Lauer had the funniest interpretation. He looked like he was swallowing a frog when he said it.

allen of MS 5:50PM December 19, 2009

Funny but if unleaded gas and catalytic converter were the solution and obviously their not. Why the need for it and more lies.
If we are so consumed in this lie then why in the state of Florida you are exempt from emissions and inspection as the other states of New York,California are over burdened with this mandatory emmisions and tax.
Sounds awfully Hypocritical that this could be happening with this liberal Obama government.
So 1200 miles makes a difference in emissions? Or maybe it's all bull as I believe and as do the majority.
So would someone please explain why? No emissions in the entire state of Florida?
Liberals are hypocrites and Gore is and has always been a liar.
There is obviously no real concern if Florida has no emission inspection. And proof that global warming is a liberal hoax.

DOES IT MATTER, HONESTLY of FL 1:06PM December 19, 2009

There are several "good" reasons why people are jumping off the Global Warming/Climate Change crazy train.
1. Scientific myopia. Short term, precise data driven climatology is a relatively recent process. We're talking less than 30 years.
2. If enough computer models are used it is certain some will show the desired, subjective results. Added to that slight of hand - "garbage in, garbage out.
3. A relatively educated populace understands that there have been periods of warming and cooling in the recent past. Many also know that when co2 levels were 12 times higher than now life on earth flourished profoundly. They also may be aware that sea levels have been rising for thousands of years.
4. It's obvious that politicians, and the scientists they pay, have a dog in this fight. It's made Automaton Al a multimillionaire, a Hollywood hero and nearly a saint.
5. There is nothing but short term, empirical, circumstantial data indicating anthropogenic activity as a cause for fluctuating temps.
6. H2O (water vapor) accounts for more than 95% of atmospheric "green house gas. Anthropogenic CO2 is a fraction of 1% and even cutting back an impossible 50% would have no effect on temps.
7. Temps, sea level and ice variations to date are all within historical norms.
In the time it took to read this nearly one hundred people died because Rachel Carson's hysteria caused the banning of DDT. I see many similarities between dogmatic environmentalism and climate science. Together they appear to have morphed into neo-Pantheism - our new State Religion. And, I think the people are catching on to the hokus-pokus.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 5:27PM December 18, 2009

Affected accents and pronunciations are placed by some people onto names and words for all kinds of reasons. Rush Limbaugh, for instance, has been a master at it in his daily schtick for years.
As for public grousing, the "majority" of Americans did not like unleaded gasoline when the transition was underway to catalytic converters in cars, nor do most of them like child-resistant pill bottle caps even yet. That does not mean these changes were incorrect public policy.
Current-era climate change either is or is not caused by human activities concentrated in major nations. Our future generations of worldwide heirs will certainly know the answer by then and judge our wisdom or lack thereof. I have a feeling that those looking back from a hundred years hence will not be celebrating the louder but unsure "aw, fuggedaboudit" crowd of this moment. It's hard to imagine them cheering us for burning gas, oil and coal as fast as possible.

Muser of NM 2:54PM December 18, 2009

The developing nations want the developed nations to transfer ONE TRILLION dollars of wealth over the next ten years. The money at stake is so enormus that it is difficult to trust any of the reports from climate change activists or climate change deniers.
The "truth" mosy likely resides in the middle of the hype from both sides. Hydrocarbon resourses are finite, and we as a nation should develop a logical plan for reducing their use while not placing too great a burden on the economy. This will cost everyone some money as alternative energy sources are not currently cost competitive with hydrocarbon sources.
Instead of the hype from politicians mandating a 17% reduction from 2005 levels (which translates to about 27% per person due to population growth) we need a coherent plan for making progress in reducing hydrocarbon usage. Talk means nothing. Texas is spending about $6 billion over the next ten years to build new electricity transmission lines from wind farms in west Texas to the consumers in the east. This is financed by a few dollars a month charge on every users electric bill.
Show the country a logical plan and some progress may be achieved. Fail to have a plan, and progress will be limited.

Bob of TX 2:43PM December 18, 2009

So... if I understand correctly: Human induced climate change is a lie because (A) It snowed today while you were unloading your vehicle and (B) you think the word "Copenhagen" sounds hilarious.

Gabriela Sabatini of NY 2:13PM December 18, 2009