The cap and trade scheme is not going so well in the Senate
Eight Senate Democratsare opposing speedy action on President Barack Obama’s bill to combat global warming, complicating prospects for the legislation and creating problems for their party’s leaders.
The eight Democrats disapprove of using the annual budget debate to pass Obama’s “cap and trade” bill to fight greenhouse gas emissions, a measure that divides lawmakers, environmentalists and businesses. The lawmakers’ opposition makes it more difficult for Democratic leaders to move the bill without a threat of a Republican filibuster.
They aren’t necessarily against cap and trade, but, they believe that the issue should be debated, not fast tracked (like they want to do with healthcare legislation, as well,) since it will f*ck up basically the entire economy. Oh, and for no reduction of CO2 output.
However much the oceans riseby the end of the century, add an extra 8 inches or so for New York, Boston and other spots along the coast from the mid-Atlantic to New England. That’s because of predicted changes in ocean currents, according to a study based on computer models published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Oh, OK. Crystal ball time. I’d believe them if they could come out with models that were at least 90% accurate for the 10 day weather report. Heck, the 7 day. Hell, the 5 day. But, it is easy to make these types of scare-mongering predictions, since they won’t be around to be called to account 90 years from now.
Fifty nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. Â
The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA. Â
But, they are skeptics, so, we probably shouldn’t listen to them. Snark off.
I’m just wondering if any True Believer can explain why 1990 is the best point to reduce CO2 to. Why not 1976, when the media was concerned about an ice age? How about 1850, when we were in between the end of the Little Ice Age and the beginning of another warm period?
