Who were the losers in the cap and tax bill?
Anyone who pays an electric bill would likely feel the impact of climate legislation. Utilities will try to raise rates as they invest in cleaner-yet-more-expensive energy sources. Some have already announced plans to do so. Petroleum companies also may try to import more of their refined gas and heating oil from countries with no carbon law, which will raise costs.
So, everyone. Good to know. As for compromise
In mid-spring, when the prospect of a global warming bill passing Congress seemed like an Al Gore pipe dream, President Obama invited Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) down to the Oval Office. “He realized that this was a very tough bill to get through,” Waxman remembers.
At a time when some still saw Obama as too inexperienced to adapt to Washington’s backroom ways, Waxman found the president perfectly ready to accept the only strategy that offered hope of success: Sitting down with each group affected by the bill and trading concessions for support.
That strategy yielded a narrow victory in the House on Friday. The question was, did Obama, Waxman and other supporters give away so much in the process that the benefits to the environment ended up being slim to none — especially since the bill now goes to the even less sympathetic Senate?
Horse trading has always been a part of politics, but, if the science was so settled, then why was it necessary to bribe so many to vote “Aye”? What is never answered is “will it work?” Kyoto didn’t. Most of what the United Nations is pushing will not accomplish the goals. So, other than raising the cost of everything, what will this accomplish? Ask your Representative that question, if they voted “Aye,” along with the question “Did you read it?”
On to the censored EPA CO2 endangerment report by Alan Carlin, which Anthony Watts has gotten a hold of
I’m pleased to say that we have the final report exclusively available here, courtesy of our verified contact at the EPA, who shall remain anonymous. For some background on this contact, developed with the help of Tom Fuller at the San Francisco Environmental Policy Examiner, please read the WUWT story below. The download link is also below.
Watts Up With That? has the copy here, want to give him the traffic for finding it. I have also uploaded it to Scibd. It’s 100 pages and 4mb.
It is of great importance that the Agency recognize the difference between an effort that has consumed tens of billions of dollars by the IPCC, the CCSP, and some additional European, particularly British, funding over a period of at least 15 years with what I have been able to pull together in less than a week. Obviously the number of peer reviewed papers that exist and the polish of the summary reports cannot be compared. What is actually noteworthy about this effort is not the relative apparent scientific shine of the two sides but rather the relative ease with which major holes have been found in the GHG/CO2/AGW argument. In many cases the most important arguments are based not on multi-million dollar research efforts but by simple observation of available data which has surprisingly received so little scrutiny. The best example of this is the MSU satellite data on global temperatures. Simple scrutiny of this data yields what to me are stunning observations. Yet this has received surprisingly little study or at least publicity. In the end it must be emphasized that the issue is not which side has spent the most money or published the most peer-reviewed papers, or been supported by more scientific organizations. The issue is rather whether the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis meets the ultimate scientific test—conformance with real world data. What these comments show is that it is this ultimate test that the hypothesis fails; this is why EPA needs to carefully reexamine the science behind global warming before proposing an endangerment finding. This will take more than four days but is the most important thing I can do right now and in the coming weeks and months and possibly years.
Simple observation. Instead of relying on computer models that tend to ignore the Sun, water vapor, and other natural processes, those who push AGW should take a look at real world data. Oh, and give up their cars and everything else that they say is causing global warming, if they really believe in it.
