Legislation proposed by Rhode Island U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse capping carbon emissions can protect low-income Oregonians while fighting global warming, advocates told Oregon's U.S. Senators Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden Thursday in a letter presented prior to a vote on the issue.
Absent adequate protections such as those proposed by the Whitehouse amendment, carbon emissions controls could increase the hardship faced by low-income families, said Sheketoff. He noted that these families typically lack the means to invest in energy conservation measures and energy efficient and cleaner technologies and that higher gasoline, food and other costs that will rise under a carbon cap take a bigger bite out of their incomes, compared to higher-income consumers.
To me, the "global warming" issue is a dumb as the illegal alien issue. Illegal means illegal and since global temperatures aren't going up then we obviously don't have a "global warming" problem. (which is why the terminology has gone to "climate change")
What we have is an outright power grab and a huge tax increase by government in the name of saving the world. But oh wait, our good liberals in congress will make sure that the poor don't share in the burden.
I haven't read the amendment but I'm not sure how you protect one group of people when the cost increase of cap and trade will be seen in your electric bill, your gas bill, your grocery bills, your water bills, your household goods and your transportation bills.
If the earth has a fever how come I'm the one who is nauseous?
19 comments:
Earth to Idiot Daniel Miglavs: The phenomenon of climate change is not based on what one study showed happening during the 4-week period of May 2008, nor is it based on any other infintessimally small fraction of time over the period of recorded history. Remove your head from your rectal cavity, please, as this could cause injury to yourself or others, particularly if you are enjoying your "personal independence" (from all rational thought, apparently) while driving.
Earth to idiot anonymous: take your head out. There is not a consensus on global warming, or now that the temperatures are not going up "global climate change". Since you are so smart this will be light reading for you.
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com
How about this article on the ice getting thicker in the Arctic.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8583
Let's try this:
Global Warming Hoax
It's simple to see why some people are pushing the whole "Global Warming" thing. Power and Money.
Look at how much money people like Al Gore are set to make. He has a vested interest in dozens of "green" businesses that would benefit greatly if some type of legislation is passed regarding "Carbon Credits".
I look at it simply as well. I have one question for congress:
Where exactly in the Constitution does it give you the power or authority to regulate how much carbon I can or cannot produce or consume?? Enumerated Powers Act?? Nope, not in there.
In fact, nowhere in the Constitution does congress have the right or the authority to regulate the consumption of ANYTHING. The constitution does not GIVE power to the Government, the Constitution LIMITS the power of Government. Plain and simple.
John McCain, Newt Gingrich and many other respected Republicans are working to fight global warming. I would say that the Republican opinion leaders as others are already on board. Those that don't believe in global warming or climate change are being rooted out. Take Weiss and Taylor, they are like pariah in their own field, mostly viewed as akin to a holocaust denier. My childs school is teaching climate change and human impact on it. The facts are the facts and your feelings on the matter aren't facts. It is more than a little too late for your post, Daniel.
That's a pretty nifty trick, Daniel. Since you can make climate change vanish by simply saying that "we obviously don't have a "global warming" problem," then the next time you see a Mexican, just tell yourself: "We obviously don't have a "illegal alien" problem."
When Daniel goes to a place like the National Climatic Data Center and reads something like this ...
Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.
Recent analyses of temperature trends in the lower and mid- troposphere (between about 2,500 and 26,000 ft.) using both satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data show warming rates that are similar to those observed for surface air temperatures. These warming rates are consistent with their uncertainties and these analyses reconcile a discrepancy between warming rates noted on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (U.S. Climate Change Science Plan Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1).
An enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause cooling in higher parts of the atmosphere because the increased "blanketing" effect in the lower atmosphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the upper atmosphere. Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500 ft.) since 1979 is shown by both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data (see previous figure), but is larger in the radiosonde data likely due to uncorrected errors in the radiosonde data.
Relatively cool surface and tropospheric temperatures, and a relatively warmer lower stratosphere, were observed in 1992 and 1993, following the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The warming reappeared in 1994. A dramatic global warming, at least partly associated with the record El Niño, took place in 1998. This warming episode is reflected from the surface to the top of the troposphere.
There has been a general, but not global, tendency toward reduced diurnal temperature range (DTR: the difference between daily high or maximum and daily low or minimum temperatures) over about 70% of the global land mass since the middle of the 20th century. However, for the period 1979-2005 the DTR shows no trend since the trend in both maximum and minimum temperatures for the same period are virtually identical; both showing a strong warming signal. A variety of factors likely contribute to this change in DTR, particularly on a regional and local basis, including changes in cloud cover, atmospheric water vapor, land use and urban effects.
Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth. Evidence such as changes in glacial mass balance (the amount of snow and ice contained in a glacier) is useful since it not only provides qualitative support for existing meteorological data, but glaciers often exist in places too remote to support meteorological stations. The records of glacial advance and retreat often extend back further than weather station records, and glaciers are usually at much higher altitudes than weather stations, allowing scientists more insight into temperature changes higher in the atmosphere.
Large-scale measurements of sea-ice have only been possible since the satellite era, but through looking at a number of different satellite estimates, it has been determined that September Arctic sea ice has decreased between 1973 and 2007 at a rate of about -10% +/- 0.3% per decade. Sea ice extent for September for 2007 was by far the lowest on record at 4.28 million square kilometers, eclipsing the previous record low sea ice extent by 23%. Sea ice in the Antarctic has shown very little trend over the same period, or even a slight increase since 1979. Though extending the Antarctic sea-ice record back in time is more difficult due to the lack of direct observations in this part of the world. ...
... his eyeballs go to the sentence that says ...
The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century.
... and he concludes that, OBVIOUSLY, we do not have a global warming problem.
Welcome to Miglavia.
With should-be criminals such as John McCain and Newt Gingrich on board, this should give you reason to suspect the theory by itself.
If this doesn't give you reason to doubt the "consensus" then how about the the over 31,000 American scientists that have signed a petition condemning the "consensus" opinion? Over 9,000 with PHD's.
Can you say SCAM? I think you can.
You want to know if we can say "scam"? Oh, what sweet irony ...
The cited petition is the product of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a fringe outfit based near Cave Junction, and the signatures were originally solicited by the late Frederick Seitz, the tobacco industry's favorite "scientist" and former advisor to R.J. Reynolds.
I'm not sure what's more pathetic ... the fact that you were taken in by obvious bullshit that has since been thoroughly and exhaustively discredited, or, that ten years later, you continue to spread it.
Dearest BobKatt:
Don't you even bother doing a sniff test before you eat shit?
I Googled eight different "scientists" names and got NOTHING, except, of course, thirty different links to the so-called petition.
Now, logic tells me that at least one of these 8 scientists did SOMETHING of note to place him or her on some other web page or link, a college university website, a science journal article, an online forum of some sort...Nope. Nada. Nothing. Not 'a one...
Tsk, tsk BobKatt...get yer smeller checked, it ain't workin' right.
Q: What do the 31,000 "scientists" who signed the petition all have in common?
A: They are all Miglavians.
I wonder if Anthony DeLucca's "FBI/INS Statistical Report" has anything to say about global warming.
And if it did, would Anthony DeLucca be able to tell us where to find a copy?
The saga continues ...
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654/
at least i have the chutzpah to say "well, i didn't fact check this so use some common sense"
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/oregon-petition-redux/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/05/oregon_petition_warmed_over.php#comment-899447
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998
http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/global-warming-oism-petition.aspx?D=12&Pg=1
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308
"I haven't read the amendment but ...
... I'm going to comment on it anyway.
Welcome to Miglavia.
John Stossel Report on Global Warming.
John Stossel is not a reporter. He is a libertarian, free-market ideologue, and from what I can tell, he's pretty up front about it. His "report" on global warming is suspect from the get-go.
I don't like what they say. Attack the messenger. Welcome to Anonystan.
Post a Comment