Didn't this just pass?

 

The bill passed the House....just barely. It now goes to the Senate where possibly saner heads will prevail. Write and/or call your Senators. Because of this and other recent issues Baucus and Tester from Montana already pretty much know all of us by our first names in this town.

 

Interesting video. I have seen it before and I watched it again. However I, and others, feel it has many inherent flaws to it. Without typing until my fingers fall off, I will rather post a link to a critical, academic analysis of this particular film.

The 11 page paper is written by David Jones, Andrew Watkins, Karl Braganza and Michael Coughlan of the National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology - Australia.

http://csiro.au/files/files/pfb4.pdf

"It is only an error in judgment to make a mistake, but it shows infirmity of character to adhere to it when discovered." - Christian Nevell Bovee

 

Even a cursory examination of this monstrosity of a bill makes one wonder what on earth out elected leaders must be thinking. It is, quite simply, insane.

For a graphic of the cost/benefit analysis of this bill on various states, follow the link. The numbers are from the CBO, which is generally considered to be non-partisan.

http://www.nma.org/pdf/061909_2454_map.pdf

Leaving "climate change" aside, the fact is, this bill will do virtually NOTHING to curtail greenhouse emissions, either globally or in the US. It WILL permanently damage the economic might of the US, who's resources are not infinite. In point of fact, reducing US economic output will mean a great deal of pain, misery, and death for much of the developing world who relies on US largess for so much.

I've written everyone, even the Prez. It may be a pointless gesture, but other than voting, what else can you do? Can't we take 10 minutes to put pen to paper and write a frikin letter?

 

And this is new news because why? All politicos regardless of party affiliation dont think, they react to public perception and the lobbyists with their clout. This is the way its always been, it isnt right but it should not be a surprise to americans either

 

Quite.

This particular bill is exceptionally egregious, however. 300 pages added at 0300 am the morning of the bill's vote in the house.

No one read this thing. It's a bill written by lobbyists and special interests.

 

So my favorite reaction to all this is the "head in the sand" nay-sayers.

Now, whether or not you believe in global warming, climate change, earth fever or whatever, wouldn't it be prudent to act as though it is a reality before it is too late?? To me it doesn't make sense to say, "Nope, I am going to wait until we have 100% proof that this thing is real before I believe we should take action." Well, by then it could very well be too late to make the changes necessary to save the environment.

I really hope this (insert favorite phrase here) is not real and just part of the natural cycle of the earth, however everything I have seen and read makes me doubt this is just that. Given the changes in the environment since the turn of the 20th century I find it very hard to believe man isn't at least partly responsible for some of the climate events we see today.

I am not saying I agree with THIS bill at all. However, I feel something needs to be done now as a preemptive measure for future damage we may cause if it does turn out to be mankind's fault.

To put it another way: I would rather use a condom during sex to try and prevent a pregnancy than HOPE the timing is right so that we dodge a bullet without one. Maybe not the best analogy for some on here, but it's the best I can think of off the top of my head in the few minutes I have.

 

It would be safe to implement those things that will not have a drastic, negative effect on economies and on the ability of the developing world to become a safer and healthier place to live.

We start implementing the more drastic efforts, that will harm people, when the science of the whole thing is more concrete.

The proponents of the man-caused model are very vocal, as are the opponents. The difference is is that the media has made up its mind and only gives time to those they agree with. It makes it appear that it is scientific fact with a vast consensus of scientist. However, there is a majority of climate scientists that do disagree with the man-caused model.

If we are going to cause significant harm to the airline industry, shouldn't it be based on better information?

 

Deleted. Forget it. It's dishearting that there are people in the United States in 2009 that honestly belive that climate change is junk science and a liberal plot to increase your taxes.

 

And my favorite reaction to this is all the "head in the cloud" yeah sayers. The kind of guys who say we must do something, right thing wrong thing it makes no difference. Who cares if every serious study shows CO2 is a result of the earth warming not a cause of it we have to do something.

My favorite anaolgy to this would be what if we had an economic crisis and a bunch of opportunists in Washington (both parties) said we have to do something. So they borrow 10-15,000 from each of our kids to buy votes. The end result is the economic recovery is stiffled with nothing but future hyper inflation to show for it. But hey they did something.