A Supreme Court case involving global warming is coming up and the U.S. government is on the side of polluters and partisan hitmen Ted Olson and Ken Starr.
» Breaking News
Myanmar Court Gives Comedian 45 Years For Helping Cyclone Relief
Verizon Workers Probed Obama’s Cell Phone
Maya Hills: Breaking Beauty
Frederick Purvis Arrested By FBI For Terror Threat Vs. Paul Brown Stadium
Britney Does Starbucks Run
This oughta be good. Part of the admin’s argument is that the EPA doesn’t have the authority to regulate this. I don’t have the legal know-how to argue that point (tho I would expect the explicit wording in the Clean Air act implied that they _do_ have the authority), but here’s the fun part:
Even if it had such authority, the EPA still would not use it at this point because of uncertainty surrounding the issue of global warming, the administration said.
I can’t wait to hear this administration & it’s paid hacks try to defend that statement in court against actual scientists…
You mean as compared to the *cough* non-partisan Al Gore? You know, the one with the G-5 jet that is booming all around the world screaming “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” for larger and larger speakers fees?
Oh the humanity of it all…
Leave the smears for some other site. Global warming is real and Al Gore has educated more Americans about it than anyone else.
You mean as compared to the *cough* non-partisan Al Gore? You know, the one with the G-5 jet that is booming all around the world screaming “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”
Question for you, Peed’: Who told you that’s what Al Gore is “screaming”? I’ll wager you haven’t read his book, seen the movie, or actually heard what he has to say.
He doesn’t have to, he knows it’s all lies and political grandstanding, for the talking points tell him so.
Remember the argument is is this latest small blip of global warming amn induced or merely another in the historical cycle of ups and downs. I guess like 2006 the hurricane increase due to global warming, you already know the TRUTH.
The hurricanes are more intense, neither Gore nor the other scientists said we would have more. Stop smearing, please.
This is what passes for liberal debate…”It’s true its true its true, now stop argueing it’s hurting my feelings”
Ollie I would expect that sort of an argument from some of your bottom-dwelling readers, but usually you don’t pretend that the “truth” has been given to you from above..
I’ll wager you haven’t read his book, seen the movie, or actually heard what he has to say.
It seems like only yesterday someone was taunting, “divert, divert.”
Anyone recall who?
Dude, every scientist worth his salt who isn’t down on their knees for the oil companies acknowledges the reality of global warming. Cons have this aversion to scientific reality that’s a lot like villagers drowning the town “witch”.
Here we go again.
Do all of these scientists you point to acknowledge that mankind is the driving force behind global climate change (remember, some places are getting colder)?
OT:
Whoa! What happened? My first post about Gore trying to have it both ways is time stamped one hour later than my second post!
What’s up with that?
dr pedro | Nov 29, 2006 6:45:09 PM
“Ollie I would expect that sort of an argument from some of your bottom-dwelling readers, but usually you don’t pretend that the “truth” has been given to you from above..”
Because that’s reserved for my baby, The Decider.
Actually, Gore tries to have it both ways.
For example, in this speech he says:
Then two sentences later he says:
There’s obviously a point in telling us that.
He does the same thing in his movie. He tells us that scientists don’t absolutely know something, but then goes on to tell us a bunch of stories supporting his view.
Are you more likely to remember a one sentence disclaimer or a bunch of visually stimulating stories?
Oliver vs The Truth:
Sept 26, 2006 - OW links to a report stating
Nov 30, 2006 - OW states
Oliver, stop lying please. It’s on your own blog.
Here’s a game for all of the so-called conservatives on OW. It is a game of risk, price and insurance:
What was the probability that Iraq posessed WMD’s? According to Ron Suskind’s book, as long as there was a 1% chance (the risk) that they did, the war effort was justified. The price of insurance to have discovered whether there were WMDs is now about $300 billion and according to Joseph Stiglitz will probably run to $1.5 trillion (insurance.) The cost of another attack of the size of 9/11 would probably run about $100 billion (the risk indemnification.)
Conversely, the consensus of scientists (per the IPCC) states that there is a greater than 50% chance (risk)that the most recent global warming is anthropogenic. The cost of converting to an economy that kept our current carbon output on Kyoto targets would be $300 billion (insurance) — forget all of the peripheral benefits. And the potential cost of inaction is on the low end probably 1% of global GDP and according to the Stern Review, as high as 32% of global GDP, which is $44 trillion in today’s dollars(indemnification.)
In sum, $1.5 trillion to protect a 1% chance of losing $100 billion is smart bet to a conservative, but spending $300 billion to protect a greater than 50% chance of losing $14 trillion is not. This is why I personally look at you all and say you are indeed dangerous, un-American people.
Does anybody have the exact duration of time Gore was referring to when he said “frequency?” Was he speaking about annual trends or trends over a longer period?
For example, conservatives love to boast that since hurricanes have been less plentiful this season, it is irrefutable proof that climate change is at least still up for debate. Unfortunately, they completely disregard an El Nino in the Pacific and ongoing dry spell in the Tropical Atlantic that have disrupted hurricane activity this season. So, in effect, the right is trying to latch onto the exception to disprove the rule. This is much the same as when they roll out the argument that some areas are cooling, so how can it be “global” warming? The early stages of climate disruption are bound to produce pockets of cooler air thanks to rapidly melting ice at the poles and at higher elevations. Like ice in your drink, however, the effect is short lived and eventually all the ice melts and your drink creeps up to room temperature.
It’s about as smart as standing in the eye of a hurricane and giving the all clear with a “hey, it’s dry and mildly breezy where I’m standing.”
And Z Adura is 100% correct, the consequences of inaction FAR outweigh the consequences of getting off our spoiled-consume-25%-of-the-world’s-energy industrial asses and cleaning up our act.
I’m guessing your computer usage doesn’t count?
Oliver, there were left wing scientists saying hurricane frequency increase was being caused by global warming. You are wrong. For some strange reason they shut up this year - undoubtedly now working on a thesis (at Southern Connecticut State Teachers, Cone-Setters and Bullsh*t Extraordinaire University) that hurricane INFREQUENCY can be explained by man made global warming.
Thanks JWG. Good catch.
Well, since z_adura brought up the IPCC, let’s go straight to the source and see what quick action will gain for us…
From the Technical Summary
F.10 Projections of Future Changes in Response to CO2 Concentration Stabilisation Profiles
And here’s the global cost projection from the IPCC to stabilize CO2 concentrations.
We’re talking about spending trillions of dollars and seriously decreasing productivity (based on current technology) and we’ll still face centuries of rising temperatures, melting ice, and rising sea levels.
That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t strive to reduce our ability to pollute, but we can calm down and think about how to actually make a positive difference without throwing money at a problem that “scientific consensus” says is not going away anytime soon.
JWG, here is where you go from critic to pathetic hack…
We can’t prevent cancer, crime, terrorism or any other of the ills that negatively affect the human condition. Should we defund the police, cancer research or homeland security? Of course not.
“I’m guessing your computer usage doesn’t count?”
Sure it does. I said “our.” I also biked to work for over five years and worked out of my home for four more. My computer, by the way, is a laptop and the system regulates its power based on need. Web surfing uses very little juice, not to mention the fact that the system cycles between the battery and the outlet, effectively giving me 6-8 hours of use “off the grid.” What are you doing?
“Seriously decreasing productivity”
Prove it.
It has already been pointed out many times that new industries will rise to offset any losses to the decline of carbon dependent businesses.
“We’re talking about spending trillions of dollars…”
And getting nothing in return? This is all money thrown down the well? Why is investment in any other business seen as just that, an investment, but money sunk into clean energy and pollution control is seen as lost to some nether worldy liberal black hole.
You neglect to mention the costs of inaction.
Or are we to think that crop loss, increased incidence of disease, increases in weather extremes, coral bleaching, loss of tropical forestry, and so on are free?
Just because climate change is already here is no reason to hem and haw and make things worse. The sooner we stabilize the patient, the sooner we can actually work to make them better. You don’t tell a cancer patient to start treatment in a year because they are already sick and who knows what nifty treatment options will be available in a year.
Bill, your cancer analogy is right on…you DON’T tell a cancer patient to wait a year for treatment…
BUT….you damn well sure confirm that the diagnosis is cancer before STARTING treatment…you don’t just look at a lump and say “yup, no question, cancer…get a Hickman in him and start the chemo…”
Pedro, there is never going to be a diagnisis that isn’t without scientific crackpot critics.
In fact, very little in life will ever be certain (except that everybody who doesn’t think like you will be called a leftist.)
Oh, please. Let’s continue your medical analogy. You have a room full of people who are desparate for help and you want to spend all your resources on the one patient who is not terminal and who will CONTINUE showing symptoms no matter how much you do with current technology.
Hey! Let’s spend trillions of dollars doing nothing to significantly alter the climate!
Investment good. Goverment regulation bad.
Good. I guess the manufacturing that went into the laptop was green as well? Mining the minerals? Processing the plastic? Transporting the materials and finished product? How about disposal — any idea how many toxins are in a disposed laptop?
Trying to heat up the Earth just like everyone else. I like wearing shorts.
and don’t forget sandals JWG, I like sandals….oooh…and hawaiian shirts! those are cool…
You have a room full of people who are desparate for help and you want to spend all your resources…
Curious, who are the room full of desperate people in this analogy? Troops in Iraq?
I like wearing shorts.
Yuk it up, guys. I’m sure your great-grandchildren will find it amusing also. when they’re living underground or something.
Hey I can make shit up too!
The multi-millions who die yearly due to poor water quality, insect-borne illnesses, and other enviromental quality issues that we can currently treat.
Ok so seriously duros and bill…
You guys are both fighting for more nuclear power plants right? Because there is no argument (ooh…I love that lefty ploy!)that nuclear power is the most carbon friendly way to fuel a modern society, right?
Cause if you do, then count me a true believer, as I want to do that too!
The multi-millions who die yearly due to poor water quality, insect-borne illnesses, and other enviromental quality issues that we can currently treat.
What, and we’re not doing that? Bullshit.
And Pedro, I have, in fact, revised my opinion of nuclear energy. As long as we can do it safely, reverse the restrictions on spent fuel rods and re-use them instead of hitting the landfill, and not go with the lowest bidder for construction, yeah, I’m ok with it. France has more nuclear plants than any other nation. They are all built to the same specs with the same materials and have never had an accident. We should work on that. Of course, we can’t even get the high-speed trains to work in this country for some reason.
Oh, so you’re happy with the effort we’re currently making? Wow.
Didn’t say that. We could do more. But it sounded like you’re saying we are doing nothing. I call bullshit.
That is all.
Seems to me that if companies were greener, there would, de facto, be fewer environmental quality issues.
I’m just sayin’
I am saying we need to prioritize how we spend money. Why should we spend trillions of dollars to try to affect climate change when the very same scientific consensus is that the temperatures will continue to rise, ice will continue to melt, and oceans will continue to rise for centuries?
Why would we spend trillions to do so little when that money could do something real for millions of people who die every year right now?
Because it might be important to think ahead, for future generations, where it might make sense not to make a bad situation worse. Millions of people are gonna die every year whether we like it or not. Inequities of wealth and power will continue until this little blue marble gets swallowed by the sun. And people will continue to die. If we make changes to how we treat the environment now, it could effect how your grandkids treat it later. That’s all.
I know it’s a hard concept to comprehend, in this society of microwave friggin’ bacon, how there is no instant gratification to global warming, but, come on; geologically speaking, mankind is so the new kid.
Hmmm…I’m thinking that if someone on the right used this in an argument, he’d be attacked mercilessly.
The Nation certainly has fallen when the members of the Supreme Court, previously appointed for their expertise on obstetrics, are now being called on to expound on climatology.
What have we done?
They’re deciding if the EPA currently has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emmisions.
Hmmm…I’m thinking that if someone on the right used this in an argument, he’d be attacked mercilessly
Oh, facrssakes, don’t be so dense. You’re using death as a political stratagem, now? People die. Period.
Way to go on the deflection, though, JWG.
They’re deciding if the EPA currently has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emmisions.
JWG, it wasn’t nice to embarrass your right-wing colleague fd100 that way.
See, fd100 was pretending that lefties want the Supreme Court to weigh in on the science of global warming. But then you had to go and pull back the curtain and show that fd100 was all bluster. According to you, the Supremes are just deciding the boundaries of the EPA’s authority.
Disunity in the ranks?
I didn’t realize I had a team. Or does stereotyping make it easier for you to manage?
I didn’t realize I had a team.
Disunity! Disunity!