There are several other fun stories out there, such as Hillary threatening to put Iran in timeout, Janet Napolitano blaming Canada for the 9/11 terrorists, and mobile phones getting a bit out of control, but nothing could be more fun this Thursday that Senator Waffles wading in to the climate change legislation issue
Senator John F. Kerry, opening a hearing on global warming on Earth Day, says this is a “make-or-break” year on the issue and calls on the United States to spearhead the effort.
Covening the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Massachusetts Democrat notes that a key international conference on climate change is later this year in Copenhagen, Denmark.
“The clock is ticking on the best chance the countries of the world will have to marshal an effective global response,” he said in his prepared opening remarks.
“All policymakers involved in this process need to realize that if we aim too low, America and the global community will fail to do what is necessary to meet this challenge. It’s that simple.”
Wasn’t that what Kyoto was about? That legislation that was oh so important (and which Kerry voted against joining in 1998) and would solve AGW? Correct me if I am wrong, but, Kerry is part of the Senate, which had majority control during the first two and last two years of Bush’s time in office, and is still the majority party. So, could he certainly submit legislation, could he not? And, anyhow, why should we listen to John Kerry? As the Climahysteric talking point goes, he’s not a climatologist.
Of course, it is easy for Kerry to push climate change legislation and treaties, since he is a poodle to a very rich woman, so, the rise in the cost of everything will not affect him. Nor will it affect this low carbon nut
The California Democrat, meanwhile, compared the proposal to the nation’s buildup to fight World War II.
“We pulled ourselves out of the Great Depression when we mobilized to fight World War II. I believe we need a mobilization now, we need a mobilization to fight global warming!†she said.
Ooooooooo-kay!
Meanwhile, a very interesting interview with Anthony Watts, who may not be a climatologist, but sure knows way more than Kerry and Boxer.
No, Kyoto was not meant to “solve AGW”. It is the first in a series of steps to address global warming. Oh, and no one voted against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, because it was never sent submitted to the Senate for ratification. What the Senate DID vote on was that the US shouldn’t sign on to any agreements that don’t include targets for developing countries.
No, he’s not, but neither is he making a scientific argument about climate change. If you want that, there are certainly climate scientists that can help you out. Your side’s problem is that you tout certain “scientists” as “experts”, and relish their opinions, despite the fact that they are in unrelated fields, and have no real working knowledge on the subject.
Yeah, I especially like the part where he sets up a straw man about the earth burning up or becoming Venus. I’m not aware of ANYONE making that argument, and I’ve certainly not been convinced by anything of the sort. The only extreme “tipping point” argument I know of is that after a certain amount of warming (about 3.6 deg C above 1992, I believe), the Greenland ice sheet will begin to melt away, which would result in 20 feet or so in sea level rise, inundating many lowlying coastal communities. No, it wouldn’t happen overnight, but the change would be long term, and would force people further inland, causing overcrowding, which would put a strain on resources.
This isn’t some alarmist nonsense about the planet becoming Venus, and if you and others would shut up and listen long enough, you’d have figured that out by now. My concern is that we’re making a much more difficult future for our descendants. Even without the 20 feet of sea level rise, there are still great risks to our planet through global warming. An increase of only a couple of degrees C could result in a reduction of crop yields in already destitute areas of the globe, drought and famine, bleaching of many corals, and the extinction of some plant and animal species. And if you know anything about the food chain on this planet, you know that only a small change in the bottom of the chain can have a large effect.
So, you guys have been carping about Bush not signing Kyoto and threatening the planet for years (disregarding that the Senate voted 95-0 against signing it, and Clinton agreed,) and it meant little? You do know that the majority of 1st World signatories have completely failed to abide by it, right?
Face it, you are scared of anyone who has a different opinion then you and the rest of the believers, which tends to be typical with most liberals. You are intolerant of contrary opinions, and will denigrate personally anything outside your narrow, rigid dogma.
First of all, the deadline for meeting the cuts is 2012, so you can’t yet judge whether anyone has “failed”. Secondly, the EU released a report last year, demonstrating how they are on target to exceed the requirements of Kyoto, and have also set more stringent cuts for 2020.
Maybe it’s just me, but I would think a good sign that someone is “scared” of different opinions would be if they refused to acknowledge or address those opposing views. Hmmm… Who does that sound like?
On the contrary, I welcome opposing opinions. I only expect those with differing opinions to be able to intelligently explain them and provide some supporting evidence, so that I can carefully weigh them against my own. What I have grown wary of is people like you, who make baseless assertions and run from any presentation of real evidence, especially in the form of scientific facts.