FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Worth a look
Posted on 07/22/2008 6:07:24 PM PDT by Delacon
Madame Chairman, I am very disappointed to see that this Committee is once again beginning its deliberations on global warming in the wrong manner. Rather than focusing on substantive issues that would be helpful to the debate on global warming legislation, this Committee is choosing to engage in more political theater with a predetermined outcome. The rushed process and the complete lack of understanding of the policy implications of the Lieberman Warner doomed it from the start. Opposition to the bill was not limited to Republicans, as nearly 30% of Senate Democrats refused to support the bill.
If this Committee were serious in undertaking efforts to draft global warming policy rather than score political points, it should be focusing its efforts in a much more methodical and deliberative manner that acknowledges the complexity of the issues surrounding any mandatory emission reduction policy. Regardless of my own position on this topic, the Committee should be exploring issues to help build a record on how to draft a cap and trade system, the level of technology currently available to achieve reductions, how to allocate credits, how to design an auction system, how to create a domestic offset program, what the international impacts will be on trade and particularly exports, how to effectively contain costs through a transparent mechanism, and the list could go on.
Instead we are here to politicize the internal deliberative process of the Administration under the guise of an update on the science of global warming hearing. While I welcome the opportunity to discuss the latest science on global warming, doing it in this heavily political setting with a predetermined outcome focused on internal deliberations of the Executive is not the right venue for such discussion. It is my view that regardless of Administration, the President acting through the entire executive branch is fully entitled to express his policy judgments to the EPA Administrator, and to expect his subordinate to carry out the judgment of what the law requires and permits. It can be argued that the “unitary Executive concept” promotes more effective rulemaking by bringing a broader perspective to bear on important regulatory decisions. It also enhances democratic accountability for regulatory decision-making by pinning responsibility on the President to answer to the public for the regulatory actions taken by his Administration. Therefore, I consider this debate over censorship within the Administration to be a nonissue. All administrations edit testimony and all documents go through interagency review before any final agency action. I cannot support any investigations that could have a chilling effect within the deliberative process of the Administration, and cause future career and political employees from refraining from an open and honest dialogue.
Regarding the real subject of the hearing, it is no secret what my views on the science of man-made global warming are. I welcome Dr. Roy Spencer, who will be updating the Committee on his recent theoretical and observational evidence that climate sensitivity has been overestimated, as well as giving his perspective on White House involvement in the reporting of agency employee’s work.
I am also happy to report that there are several updates that are worth noting for purposes of the record for this hearing. Numerous peer-reviewed studies, analyses and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute many conclusions of the IPCC. I have documented in the past how the consensus on the “science is settled” debate has been challenged, and in many cases, completely refuted, from the hockey stick, to the Stern Review, to the IPCC backtracking on conclusive physical links between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.
Just this past week, a major new study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics that finds worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response' to oceans, and not carbon dioxide. There have also been recent challenges by Russian scientists to the very idea that carbon dioxide is driving Earth’s temperature and a report from India challenging the so-called “consensus.” The Physics and Society Forum, a unit within the American Physical Society, published a new paper refuting the IPCC conclusions where the editor conceded there is a ‘considerable presence' of global warming skeptics within the scientific community. More and more prominent scientists continue to speak out and dissent from man made global warming. In June, the Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever, declared himself a “skeptic” and said “global warming has become a new religion.” Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology also dissented in 2008. “As a scientist I remain skeptical” of climate fears, Dr. Simpson said in February of this year. In June, a top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist, Dr. Kiminori Itoh, turned on the IPCC and called man-made global warming fears the “worst scientific scandal in the history.” In addition, more evidence of challenges to global warming occurred when two top hurricane scientists announced they were reconsidering their views on global warming and hurricanes. As the normal scientific process continues to evolve and models continue to improve, there have many more instances documented that are positive developments, which should be embraced, rather than ridiculed or immediately attacked by the media or policymakers. It is my hope that as more and more of these researchers speak out, scientific objectivity and integrity can be restored to the field of global warming research. Contact: Marc Morano 202-224-5762 Matt Dempsey 202-224-9797 matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov
ping
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Yow!
X, why dont you like this guy?
God bless Senator Inhofe...a true hero. God keep him safe and healthy. We need his voice for sanity.
Mark
If only he could get Gore put in prison for fraud!!!!
I’ll bump to that!
where exactly did I say that?
Inhofe is a modern miracle - a Congress critter on the side of the people.
I don’t normally speak in those terms but, yes, I truly wish him all the best. He’s carrying the burden for all of us.
I’m trying to do my little bit, in my own place of work and by writing letters to some (brainwashed) politicians in Australia and many of the best links to articles and studies have been on Senator Inhofe’s site (and Free Republic, of course, that goes without saying!). He is providing a major public service, both by publicising the truth and by providing a rich source of information.
Global Warming info ping
Thank you, Inhofe for your boldness and courage.
Global Warming is an interesting topic to me, but I’m a hack. I admire the Democrats for creating an issue that galvanizes the masses like Global Warming. The only way we can get the majority of people to start being more efficient is by baking up a scheme like this. Otherwise, the only thing that will cut American’s resource consumption would be a huge disruption to global resources and securities which isn’t hard to imagine considering the burdening demand from the Far East and “peak resources.”
When Obama says that American’s won’t be able to eat as much and use as much energy, its true. The question is whether a Global Economic recession decides it or if we can enter the New World on our own terms.
Another trick of Global Warming is that we will one day be able to force 3rd World Countries entering our trade organizations to conform to our “green-standards.”
Newt Gingrich predicts that the USA could have a “green economic niche” in the 21st century....
Savage Texan Writes:
“Global Warming is an interesting topic to me, but I’m a hack. I admire the Democrats for creating an issue that galvanizes the masses like Global Warming. The only way we can get the majority of people to start being more efficient is by baking up a scheme like this. Otherwise, the only thing that will cut American’s resource consumption would be a huge disruption to global resources and securities which isn’t hard to imagine considering the burdening demand from the Far East and “peak resources.”
When Obama says that American’s won’t be able to eat as much and use as much energy, its true. The question is whether a Global Economic recession decides it or if we can enter the New World on our own terms.
Another trick of Global Warming is that we will one day be able to force 3rd World Countries entering our trade organizations to conform to our “green-standards.”
Newt Gingrich predicts that the USA could have a “green economic niche” in the 21st century....”
Welcome to FR. Did you join just today so you could post an outcome measured, means neutral ethical train wreck? At FR we are inclined to us the TRUTH to free society from brain rot. We rely on education, analytical thinking to escape the attempts of others to control the sheeple. Don’t know where you are coming from but thinking that the ZOT should be considered. IB4TZ?
ping
Thanx for the ping!!
Sounds like the attitude that says if we have something, someone else has to go without. That's a single pie attitude. Why not make sure there is more than one pie? We have the skills and the technology to do so. Instead of worrying about if the climate is going to get warm or cool, why not just make sure that we don't bankrupt countries with cap and trade silliness, and CO2 requirements, when none of those will make the world any warmer or any cooler.
Let the countries take care of their own people in their own way, and if they don't have to spend money on carbon trading schemes, and hideously expensive alternative energy sources, because they've not been able to extract their own energy sources, after they've been hog-tied by the carbon nazis, they'll have the funds to do so.
Oh, and thanks for the PING!, Delacon.
“I admire the Democrats for creating an issue that galvanizes the masses like Global Warming.”
I wonder if you would have thought the same about Nazis early on? Bolsheviks?
“baking up a scheme like this.”
I am tired of paying the bill for all the BS. You must like it? Are you elated in the effects of energy costs on the poor?
“Another trick of Global Warming is that we will one day be able to force 3rd World Countries entering our trade organizations to conform to our “green-standards.”...”
This is how Liberals control the world. Many more Africans will die from starvation and disease this year, a direct result of restricted infrastructure, than Arabs did in BOTH Iraq wars. Conservatives leave behind democracy, infrastructure and food. Which one is really worse?
“When Obama says that American’s won’t be able to eat as much and use as much energy, its true.”
Two problems there. The first is it wouldn’t solve anything and much would go to waste. It all falls back to that coal fired electrical plant that foreign liberals denied them. The second is not in my America. Not in allot of personal Americas. The right will reconcile the current rift. Liberals are screwed. They are about to pulled front and center on the American stage and shown naked, for what they truly are.
Once in awhile I see someone realize they made a monumental mistake. Sometimes its when looking in the mirror. I hope you and many more see that sooner rather than later. Read, think and investigate for yourself. FR is a great place to start.
Global Warming is an interesting topic to me, but I’m a hack. I admire the Democrats for creating an issue that galvanizes the masses like Global Warming.
Glad you recognize that this is an issue created by politics, but not supported by facts. However, I find it as hard to admire the Democrats for this as it is to admire the Nazis for their success with the Big Lie. And AGW is a Big Lie.
The only way we can get the majority of people to start being more efficient is by baking up a scheme like this. Otherwise, the only thing that will cut American’s resource consumption would be a huge disruption to global resources and securities which isn’t hard to imagine considering the burdening demand from the Far East and “peak resources.”
As in the static notion of peak oil, which fails to take into account advances in the technology of extraction and exploration. This is why the peak has been predicted time and time again, but failed to materialize.
According to Daniel Yergin at the Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), “This is the fifth time that the world is said to be running out of oil. Each time....technology and the opening of new frontier areas has banished the specter of decline. There's no reason to think that technology is finished this time.”
Yergin says CERA’s analysis shows three times the amount of oil claimed by peak oil proponents. The Paris based International Energy Agency (IEA) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) goes further. The IEA believes 10 trillion barrels of conventional oil and oil equivalent natural gas remain with an equal amount of unconventional oil and gas.
Russian scientists take a contrarian view to conventional geologists. The Russians do not believe oil is a fossil fuel, based on biological material trapped by geology millions of years ago. The Russians believe oil to be primordial, coming from great depths, and virtually unlimited. This abiotic theory may or may not be true, but the Russians have been able to find oil in places conventional geology suggests lack promise.
Whether abiotic theory is correct or not, there is plenty of oil in the world. Some of it will be more expensive and difficult to extract using conventional technology, such as the vast oil reserves in the Canadian tar sands or the shale oil in Colorado. Nevertheless, the oil is there. The Bakken oil formation in North Dakota, Montana, and Canada contains up to half a trillion barrels of oil. North America alone has trillions of barrels of oil yet to be extracted.
Venezuela has huge reserves in the Orinico Belt, possibly as much as a trillion barrels. Recently, huge new discoveries have been made off the coast of Brazil and in Alaska. The Arctic is believed to hold as much as 400 billion barrels. Much of Iraq is untapped and could equal the Saudi reserves.
Again, not all of the remaining oil will be easy to extract or refine. Some of it is not possible to extract today. But that’s been the story since Hubbert first advanced his theory a half century ago. We are not about to run out of oil.
China’s booming. They’re sucking up incredible amounts of oil. The Chinese are creating a supply and demand imbalance that’s pushing up prices. Right?
Uh, no. In the year 2000, China consumed 4.8 mbpd, but produced 3.4 mbpd. In 2008, China is projected to consume 8.0 million barrels of oil per day, while producing 3.9. So, in the eight years since 2000, China’s increased net imports by 2.7 mbpd. That’s equal to 13% of U.S. consumption. It’s significant, but increasing production more than covered it.
The states comprising the former Soviet Union, for example, are cumulatively a major oil exporter. Demand in the former Soviet states increased 0.7 mbpd between 2000 and 2008, but production increased 4.7 mbpd. Russia covers China’s increase in demand all by itself, with a couple of million barrels left over.
When Obama says that American’s won’t be able to eat as much and use as much energy, its true.
No it's not. This is Jimmy Carter type scarcity thinking. It's looking at the glass as half-full. That's what socialists do. Capitalists are optimists. There's plenty of energy. Unfortunately, there's a greater supply of stupidity in Washington. Once we fix that, we can fix the other.
Personally, I can think of no better way to fix the problems in Washington than by having a bunch of elite, effete socialists lecturing us that we must go hungry because America's better days are over.
The question is whether a Global Economic recession decides it or if we can enter the New World on our own terms.
Recessions pass if government doesn't meddle and protract them (e.g., FDR). Post Carter, we got the Reagan Revolution.
Keep your Brave New World and revel in your dystopia. I prefer America with a C, not a K.
Another trick of Global Warming is that we will one day be able to force 3rd World Countries entering our trade organizations to conform to our “green-standards.”
The problem with "green standards" is the gig will be up about the AGW hoax long before we can force anything on anyone through trade. Besides, if we follow the European model, exporting U.S. jobs to either third world or countries smart enough to avoid cap & trade stupidity, we're likely to see an armed rebellion. We aren't Europeans, no matter how much the left wishes it were so.
Newt Gingrich predicts that the USA could have a “green economic niche” in the 21st century....
I'm not sure what happened to Newt. He seems to be desparately grasping for relevance and clutching at the AGW fad as a way of gaining favoritism with the media. Maybe he got too close to McCain and got infected.
I don't have anything against selling green products at a premium to fools with excess cash. However, in the long term value must be there. "Green" economics is often faux economics. The green economy is the Oakland economy. There's not there, there.
All that said, I don't mean to seem like I'm trying to beat up on you. Welcome to FR. Read, ponder, think.
Its hard to tell when someone is being satirical or is insane. I blame Jonathan Swift.
If you think for a second that arable land is infinite then you are a silly person. The only way we are going to be able to build 20 story greenhouses to feed the masses is by perfecting renewable energy sources. In my view, the plans by the Democrats would be a stimulus bill for companies that will transform the 21st century. The same technologies that are going to be used to "fight" Global Warming will be in use for the rest of our lives whether the conspiracy is true or not.
It sounds like the leftist hysteria is (temporarily) dying down in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, which is good news. Unfortunately, the demons of destruction will not go quietly into the night, and they will focus their toxic energies on some other method of destroying us and our economy.
Thanks for the pings!
Pelosi’s legacy: a Congress that uses its political power to force the use of poisonous light bulbs, “investigates” (grandstands) the use of legal substances in sports, gives monetary “help” to those who don’t need it to those who use old television sets, and says “no” to everything that would actually help everyday Americans. Does that about sum it up?
No, that's incorrect. The Democrats are pushing for boondoggles that return less energy than invested. They will take wealth from productive areas of the economy and give it to companies that will literally bury that wealth in the ground. As others have alluded to in the thread, there is and will be an energy glut. Any resources diverted into creating more "alternatives" will be wasted. There is a very simple and stark difference between those who support market economies and those who want the government to control it and you have chosen the wrong side.
Wish I could call him my senator...I’m stuck with the DC society queen Elizabeth Dole and open border/total amnesty lil Dickie Burr.
“It sounds like the leftist hysteria is (temporarily) dying down in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, which is good news.”
That’s good to hear. I wish you’d send some of it here to Australia. Not there isn’t plenty of evidence against it if you go looking but its largely not reported and everyone seems to have been enthralled by the hype. It makes me fume when the debate is framed in terms of how to introduce a horrendous emissions trading scheme rather than whether it would accomplish anything at all, apart from wrecking our economy, of course.
“All that said, I don’t mean to seem like I’m trying to beat up on you. Welcome to FR. Read, ponder, think.”
Not me..
It was Savage Texan, I agree. Whole Heartedly. My post was a very short version of your reply. Please post this kind of thing to the right guy. Oh, I do disagree with the Chinese oil demand.. the construction (Olympics) boom has surely inflated demand, but temporarily.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2049695/posts?page=15#15
Is where your reply should have been.
I feel violated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.