Senate Democrats abandon comprehensive climate bill

[Renae]

Conceding they can't find enough votes for the measure, Senate Democrats will announce Thursday they are abandoning for now efforts to put together a comprehensive energy bill that would seek to limit greenhouse gas emissions, ending the immediate prospect for a key legislative priority of President Obama and congressional Democrats.

Instead, Democrats, according to sources, will push for a more limited bill that would seek to increase liability costs that oil companies would pay following spills such as the one in the Gulf of Mexico and would create additional incentives for the purchase of both natural gas vehicles and products that can be used to reduce energy use in homes.

washingtonpost.com

And no, it wasn't the GOP's fault, they didn't have enough Dem votes.

 

[Erod]

Americans long ago figured out this climate scare was the leavings of a large farm animal. Al Gore is now a cartoon instead of a Nobel Peace Prize winner. The climate change cow has left the barn.

 

[Deuce]

Some day we might figure out that some things are more important than money.

 

[lizzie]

I hope to God so. We can't afford any more "change".

 

[Renae]

Some day we might figure out that some things are more important than money.

Why do you think this failed? Enough people figured out that there are more important things then money. (I.E. enriching the "green" lobby isn't worth the cost to their re-election chances)

 

[jujuman13]

I hope to God so. We can't afford any more "change".

Lizzie, people voted for change, well, by God they got it.
Is it the fault of the disgusting politicians (usually ex lawyers) if their clients (the electorate) fail to ask even the most basic questions, such as what type or kind of change?
True Obama came along and promised a disgruntled electorate 'Change'.
Was it Obama's fault that the electorate believed change would mean the end to sleazy politics, that Government transparency did not actually mean transparency, that Gov. postings Bills on the web was not actually intended to mean that the electorate could read these bills in their entirety 2 or 3 days prior to being enacted into law.
In reality the electorate needs to ask more questions with demand for more details of what these crooks intend doing to the electorate.
The US actually needs greater observance by the elected elite to the Founders idea's of what the US was to become.
At the moment we are little more than a version of any Socialist/dictatorial state.

 

[Deuce]

Why do you think this failed? Enough people figured out that there are more important things then money. (I.E. enriching the "green" lobby isn't worth the cost to their re-election chances)

I wouldn't expect you to understand. You're in the demographic that somehow got convinced that science has a liberal bias. The group of people that thinks that a few out of context emails sent between a small group of scientists at a single university somehow invalidates a century's worth of work by thousands of scientists in dozens of fields. That somehow there's some massive global conspiracy to... artificially raise the price of energy for some unspecified nefarious purpose. That all of this data about temperature changes, simple physics, and thousands of signs in nature itself could all be faked and nobody would notice somehow.
There have been skeptics since the 1970's who have been saying all along "Oh it's just a natural cycle! We'll see cooling in the next couple of decades!" Well, 40 years later and it's still getting warmer. It's not the sun, we measure that. It's not the earth's orbit, that takes too long to change and we measure that too. It's not the continental configuration, ditto. There's powerful direct evidence that it's a change in the greenhouse effect: the radiation that normally escapes the earth is decreasing in exactly the spectrum that CO2 absorbs. Directly measured via satellite. A crapload of energy is being absorbed that wasn't being absorbed before. Where does that energy go?

The misinformation spread by skeptics is too massive to fit in a single post. Ever watch that film, The Great Global Warming Swindle? Lies. As in direct falsification of data. Provable, because they cite data from NASA that is drastically different from NASA's actual data. They take the words of a scientist out of context to mean exactly the opposite of his intent: he's testified to this. They cut off graphs of solar data at 1980 because after that date the data directly contradicts ther claim.

Guys like Anthony Watts go around photographing temperature stations, trying to prove that the stations are sited improperly and urban heat bubbles are creating a warming bias in the temperature record. What he fails to tell you is that even using only stations that his team labels as "good" or "best" leaves you with an identical temperature record.

Anything the skeptics have come up with, there's direct scientific evidence to the contrary. Don't believe me? Bring your arguments down to the Environmental forum. I'll smack down every single one of them myself. And I'm just some bonehead on the internet.

Global warming is real, it's a significant problem, and it's our freaking fault.

 

[ptif219]

I wouldn't expect you to understand. You're in the demographic that somehow got convinced that science has a liberal bias. The group of people that thinks that a few out of context emails sent between a small group of scientists at a single university somehow invalidates a century's worth of work by thousands of scientists in dozens of fields. That somehow there's some massive global conspiracy to... artificially raise the price of energy for some unspecified nefarious purpose. That all of this data about temperature changes, simple physics, and thousands of signs in nature itself could all be faked and nobody would notice somehow.
There have been skeptics since the 1970's who have been saying all along "Oh it's just a natural cycle! We'll see cooling in the next couple of decades!" Well, 40 years later and it's still getting warmer. It's not the sun, we measure that. It's not the earth's orbit, that takes too long to change and we measure that too. It's not the continental configuration, ditto. There's powerful direct evidence that it's a change in the greenohouse effect: the radiation that normally escapes the earth is decreasing in exactly the spectrum that CO2 absorbs. Directly measured via satellite. A crapload of energy is being absorbed that wasn't being absorbed before. Where does that energy go?

The misinformation spread by skeptics is too massive to fit in a single post. Ever watch that film, The Great Global Warming Swindle? Lies. As in direct falsification of data. Provable, because they cite data from NASA that is drastically different from NASA's actual data. They take the words of a scientist out of context to mean exactly the opposite of his intent: he's testified to this. They cut off graphs of solar data at 1980 because after that date the data directly contradicts ther claim.

Guys like Anthony Watts go around photographing temperature stations, trying to prove that the stations are cited improperly and urban heat bubbles are creating a warming bias in the temperature record. What he fails to tell you is that even using only stations that his team labels as "good" or "best" leaves you with an identical temperature record.

Anything the skeptics have come up with, there's direct scientific evidence to the contrary. Don't believe me? Bring your arguments down to the Environmental forum. I'll smack down every single one of them myself. And I'm just some bonehead on the internet.

Global warming is real, it's a significant problem, and it's our freaking fault.

yes you will justify and spin and decieve with the lies of GW propagandaists

 

[Deuce]

yes you will justify and spin and decieve with the lies of GW propagandaists

And you will post this verbatim 40 times in a single thread. Every time your arguments are challenged, you jump to a new one like a schitzophrenic. I'm hoping to get some people who have actual scientific arguments to make instead of your conspiracy theories.

 

[ptif219]

And you will post this verbatim 40 times in a single thread. Every time your arguments are challenged, you jump to a new one like a schitzophrenic. I'm hoping to get some people who have actual scientific arguments to make instead of your conspiracy theories.

While you ignore the corruption of the GW propagandists

 

[Crunch]

I wouldn't expect you to understand. You're in the demographic that somehow got convinced that science has a liberal bias. The group of people that thinks that a few out of context emails sent between a small group of scientists at a single university somehow invalidates a century's worth of work by thousands of scientists in dozens of fields. That somehow there's some massive global conspiracy to... artificially raise the price of energy for some unspecified nefarious purpose. That all of this data about temperature changes, simple physics, and thousands of signs in nature itself could all be faked and nobody would notice somehow.
There have been skeptics since the 1970's who have been saying all along "Oh it's just a natural cycle! We'll see cooling in the next couple of decades!" Well, 40 years later and it's still getting warmer. It's not the sun, we measure that. It's not the earth's orbit, that takes too long to change and we measure that too. It's not the continental configuration, ditto. There's powerful direct evidence that it's a change in the greenhouse effect: the radiation that normally escapes the earth is decreasing in exactly the spectrum that CO2 absorbs. Directly measured via satellite. A crapload of energy is being absorbed that wasn't being absorbed before. Where does that energy go?

The misinformation spread by skeptics is too massive to fit in a single post. Ever watch that film, The Great Global Warming Swindle? Lies. As in direct falsification of data. Provable, because they cite data from NASA that is drastically different from NASA's actual data. They take the words of a scientist out of context to mean exactly the opposite of his intent: he's testified to this. They cut off graphs of solar data at 1980 because after that date the data directly contradicts ther claim.

Guys like Anthony Watts go around photographing temperature stations, trying to prove that the stations are sited improperly and urban heat bubbles are creating a warming bias in the temperature record. What he fails to tell you is that even using only stations that his team labels as "good" or "best" leaves you with an identical temperature record.

Anything the skeptics have come up with, there's direct scientific evidence to the contrary. Don't believe me? Bring your arguments down to the Environmental forum. I'll smack down every single one of them myself. And I'm just some bonehead on the internet.

Global warming is real, it's a significant problem, and it's our freaking fault.

Damned Martian SUV drivers.........

The planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming, new data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) show, lending support to many climatologists' claims that the Earth's modest warming during the past century is due primarily to a recent upsurge in solar energy.


Martian Ice Shrinking Dramatically

According to a September 20 NASA news release, "for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress." Because a Martian year is approximately twice as long as an Earth year, the shrinking of the Martian polar ice cap has been ongoing for at least six Earth years.

The shrinking is substantial. According to Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera, the polar ice cap is shrinking at "a prodigious rate."

"The images, documenting changes from 1999 to 2005, suggest the climate on Mars is presently warmer, and perhaps getting warmer still, than it was several decades or centuries ago," reported Yahoo News on September 20. *snip*

"The number of significant temperature forcings on the climate system grows yearly as we get to know more and more about it, but we really are at a very early stage of our exploration of this very complex system," Murray noted. "If all the estimates are true about the relative effects of forcings like the sun, black carbon, and greenhouse gases, then it is quite possible that we would have been in a sharply cooling phase over recent years were it not for these forcings. In which case, one might say, thank goodness for global warming!"

Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report - by James M. Taylor - Environment & Climate News

:2wave:

 

[Deuce]

Damned Martian SUV drivers.........



Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report - by James M. Taylor - Environment & Climate News

:2wave:

So much stupid in one post, it's just awesome. It contains so many of the fallacies and clever deceptions that skeptics use so regularly, it's just an amazing piece of work. Where to begin?

1) Bait and switch. The article title invokes NASA, but really the only contribution that NASA makes to the article is the quote saying that Mars is warming. Using NASA in the article title gives people the idea that all the information contained within is the opinion of NASA. It's not. The article is written by the Heartland Institute, of course, and they are a lobby group partially funded by the oil industry.
They don't disclose their donors anymore, after getting attention about some of their donors being the fossil fuel industry and tobacco industry. (incidentally, Heartland Institute also denies the health effects of second-hand smoke)
Heartland Institute - SourceWatch
ExxonMobil contributed $676,500 from '98-'06.
They're a lobbying group, by their own admission.
http://www.heartland.org/about/PDFs/2008Prospectus.pdf

Our primary audiences are the nation’s 8,300 state and national
elected officials and approximately 8,400 local government officials.

So. They're a lobbying group funded partially by the oil industry. Suspicious, but that doesn't necessarily dismiss the science. (have you ever heard a skeptic say that?)

2) Mars is not Earth. (durr) It has a different system. There are many significant forcings of overall temperature change: greenhouse effect, solar output, continental positions, orbital changes, or volcanic activity, to name a few. Mars being a planet we have very little direct information about, using it as a correlation to Earth is just stupid. Mars is warming, but not all planets are.

3) It's not the sun.

Note how around 1960 the sun took a pretty significant dip. Yet temperature stayed level instead of cooling. Then later on at around 1980 the sun's overall trend seems to take a bit of a dip, yet the temperature trend shifts back upward faster than before. Remember how I mentioned the Great Global Warming Swindle film? This was basically the graph they used, but they stopped an 1980 and had actually labeled it "NOW." Laughable.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf

We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming.

Solar trends and global warming

"Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale

The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings.

Solar influence on climate during the past millennium: Results from transient simulations with the NCAR Climate System Model

Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century.

The sun causes significant year-to-year variation due to its 11-year cycle, but it has not caused this long-term trend.

4) Your article actually supports AGW. You underlined a quote saying as much. You literally just emphasized the very quote that goes against whatever point you thought you were trying to make.

What's the lesson? There's more than one possible cause of a temperature change. Trying to figure out what caused the change on Mars doesn't necessarily help us figure out what caused the change on Earth. Worst. Strawman. Ever.

 

[Renae]

Well, all your data Deuce, isn't enough to convince Democrats to act, so the problem isn't as serious as you like to... pretend.

 

[Deuce]

Well, all your data Deuce, isn't enough to convince Democrats to act, so the problem isn't as serious as you like to... pretend.

What a very scientific response, MrV

Politicians look to their own reelection above virtually anything else. Running for reelection a few months after being "that guy who raised my gas prices" is not a good way to keep your job. Skeptics have done enough to keep the general public confused on the subject, so there's not as much public support for Cap and Trade as there might otherwise be. It's all about money and votes, hence my first post in this thread. If the public were better educated on the subject, they might lean towards "Well, Cap and Trade kinda sucks but I see the necessity of it. My grandkids will have it harder if I don't support this."

Feel free to bring any scientific arguments down to the environment forum. I rather enjoy it, it often forces me to go research and learn a few things. I'm confident I can hold my own in any scientific argument on the subject. This thread is more about the politics.

 

[texmaster]

What a very scientific response, MrV

Politicians look to their own reelection above virtually anything else. Running for reelection a few months after being "that guy who raised my gas prices" is not a good way to keep your job. Skeptics have done enough to keep the general public confused on the subject, so there's not as much public support for Cap and Trade as there might otherwise be. It's all about money and votes, hence my first post in this thread. If the public were better educated on the subject, they might lean towards "Well, Cap and Trade kinda sucks but I see the necessity of it. My grandkids will have it harder if I don't support this."

Feel free to bring any scientific arguments down to the environment forum. I rather enjoy it, it often forces me to go research and learn a few things. I'm confident I can hold my own in any scientific argument on the subject. This thread is more about the politics.

You're telling him to learn a few things? LOL Oh the irony.

Yes Virgina it is the sun.

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth’s climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle’s peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, “Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene.”

Certainly does help when you look over 100s of years instead of cherry picking your centuries eh Deuce?

As this graph shows, solar activity has been cyclic in nature going back hundreds of years. Solar activity is also increasing, and we are coming out of the “Little Ice Age” of just a few hundred years ago. Of course the planet is warming–we’re coming out of a cold spell! The Maunder Minimum period of diminished solar activity coincided with the Little Ice Age when Europe and North America experienced bitterly cold winters.

About 1,000 years ago, Greenland was warm enough for the Vikings to colonize and grow vineyards. Today Greenland is almost entirely covered in ice. Tell me: is the earth warmer today than it was 1,000 years ago? Did they have SUVs and coal power plants in the days of the Vikings? This isn’t tough to figure out, people.

The only thing tough about the global warming debate is trying to get the facts to match the socialist agenda of the AGW proponents. Try as they might, they just can’t do it, and more and more people are starting to see that.

Things like cyclic solar data, warming occurring on other planets such as Mars and Jupiter just don’t line up with the suppositions of the AGW worshippers. They craft all manner of complex calculations and “what ifs,” but in the end the best they can do is say things like, “Well, we can’t prove it now, but by the time we can, it’ll be too late.”

And we’re supposed to watch our electric bills go up 40% and see our economy devastated on what-ifs and a bunch of garbage that not only doesn’t match the evidence but doesn’t even pass the smell test?

I’m not as gullible as these shysters seem to think I am, and I don’t believe most of the American people are either.

Sadly, some still are.

Its always amusing to watch liberals like yourself so narcissistic about the human race and its abilities that you ignore the very object in our solar system soley responsible for our planet's life and warmth as being the cause.

 

[BCR]

explanation for the massive hole in the o-zone??

Is it natural causes? "Oh, it happens from time to time..Dumb libbys and that stupid global warming. Everyone knows the Earth will end in the rapture!!"

 

[Crunch]

You're telling him to learn a few things? LOL Oh the irony.

Yes Virgina it is the sun.

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth’s climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle’s peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, “Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene.”

Certainly does help when you look over 100s of years instead of cherry picking your centuries eh Deuce?

As this graph shows, solar activity has been cyclic in nature going back hundreds of years. Solar activity is also increasing, and we are coming out of the “Little Ice Age” of just a few hundred years ago. Of course the planet is warming–we’re coming out of a cold spell! The Maunder Minimum period of diminished solar activity coincided with the Little Ice Age when Europe and North America experienced bitterly cold winters.

About 1,000 years ago, Greenland was warm enough for the Vikings to colonize and grow vineyards. Today Greenland is almost entirely covered in ice. Tell me: is the earth warmer today than it was 1,000 years ago? Did they have SUVs and coal power plants in the days of the Vikings? This isn’t tough to figure out, people.

The only thing tough about the global warming debate is trying to get the facts to match the socialist agenda of the AGW proponents. Try as they might, they just can’t do it, and more and more people are starting to see that.

Things like cyclic solar data, warming occurring on other planets such as Mars and Jupiter just don’t line up with the suppositions of the AGW worshippers. They craft all manner of complex calculations and “what ifs,” but in the end the best they can do is say things like, “Well, we can’t prove it now, but by the time we can, it’ll be too late.”

And we’re supposed to watch our electric bills go up 40% and see our economy devastated on what-ifs and a bunch of garbage that not only doesn’t match the evidence but doesn’t even pass the smell test?

I’m not as gullible as these shysters seem to think I am, and I don’t believe most of the American people are either.

Sadly, some still are.

Its always amusing to watch liberals like yourself so narcissistic about the human race and its abilities that you ignore the very object in our solar system soley responsible for our planet's life and warmth as being the cause.

The problem with blaming it on the true culprit is that you can't tax the extra energy output from the Sun..... no new revenue for the lib welfare give a ways, and we all know you can't buy votes without funds.

 

[Deuce]

Tex, a link would be good. A common tactic by skeptics is to distort what their source supposedly said. What you quote invokes the GISS, but I'd be interested to see your source and what they're quoting.

Also, an increase in solar output 200 years ago changed the temperature 200 years ago. For about the last 50 years, solar output has had the long-term trend of being flat. Yet temperature has increased. Why is that?
Yes, the sun has a significant impact on climate forcings. I already said that.
Take your second graph. See how since ~1950 the sun has not increased its output significantly? Just a wobble up and down like usual, but no long-term increase. The temperature increase since 1950 has been faster than the increase prior to 1950.
Before 1950: Slow warming, climbing solar output
After 1950: Faster warming, steady solar output.

And yet you conclude that the current trend is caused by the sun?

Also, the "learning" I referred to was my own. I'm not sure how you concluded otherwise.

 

[Crunch]

explanation for the massive hole in the o-zone??

You sucked?

Is it natural causes? "Oh, it happens from time to time..Dumb libbys and that stupid global warming.

True.

Everyone knows the Earth will end in the rapture!!"

After, can I have your car?

 

[Gipper]

These Democratic incumbents are hella smart, as this shows. Pretty much every Dem outside New England and the west coast is on the chopping block with their "far from mainstream" views. Every time they try to push the Pelosi agenda, they see their careers coming to an end.

All you see now is mankind's innate desires for self-preservation. If Obama had a 70% approval rating, this would pass without hesitation.

 

[Crunch]

Tex, a link would be good. A common tactic by skeptics is to distort what their source supposedly said. What you quote invokes the GISS, but I'd be interested to see your source and what they're quoting.

Also, an increase in solar output 200 years ago changed the temperature 200 years ago. For about the last 50 years, solar output has had the long-term trend of being flat. Yet temperature has increased. Why is that?
Yes, the sun has a significant impact on climate forcings. I already said that.
Take your second graph. See how since ~1950 the sun has not increased its output significantly? Just a wobble up and down like usual, but no long-term increase. The temperature increase since 1950 has been faster than the increase prior to 1950.
Before 1950: Slow warming, climbing solar output
After 1950: Faster warming, steady solar output.

And yet you conclude that the current trend is caused by the sun?

Also, the "learning" I referred to was my own. I'm not sure how you concluded otherwise.

Talk about distorting.......... the second graph is sun spot activity. First graph is solar output, and it has been going up steadily since 1950.

So much for your powers of perception and dispassionate evaluation of the facts. :roll:

 

[Deuce]

Ironically, I think a hole in the ozone layer would have cooled the earth slightly (very slightly). Ozone is a greenhouse gas, but it's not as powerful and not nearly as abundant as CO2 or water vapor.

 

[Crunch]

Ironically, I think a hole in the ozone layer would have cooled the earth slightly (very slightly). Ozone is a greenhouse gas, but it's not as powerful and not nearly as abundant as CO2 or water vapor.

What next? A new tax to limit water in the atmosphere? :lamo

 

[Gipper]

Well, the newest twist I've heard to "global warming" is that the mean temperature has dropped approximately 1/2 to 1 degree over the past 100 years. I believe that's why they changed it to "climate shift" instead of "global warming". Too easy to debunk the latter, but these eco-terrorists still have to get their point across.

These are the same guys who beat off vigorously to The Day After Tomorrow and yell "see, I told you it can happen".

Do I want to save the environment? Sure. Do I want to completely uproot the global economy to do so? Hell no.

 

[BCR]

Republicans really shouldn't be calling out Liberals on intelligence, I mean a large portion of republicans actually believe the Earth is 6,000 years old so how could you expect them to believe in Global Warming?