Obama? Progress? Change? http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/2...hdGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawN3aWxsdXNnb2VtcHQ- By Renee Schoof, McClatchy Newspapers Renee Schoof, Mcclatchy Newspapers – Thu Oct 29, 6:36 pm ET WASHINGTON — Without a new law requiring cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. could end up going empty-handed to the international climate talks in December. Many nations are watching to see whether the Senate will make progress on a climate and energy bill that would spell out the U.S. national emissions-reduction plan. Without an offer of such cuts from the largest source of emissions that are already in the atmosphere, there won't be a global deal at the talks in Copenhagen, Denmark . At the same time, other countries have started to put forward their own plans to cut emissions. If that momentum builds, it could put pressure on the Senate to pass the bill, possibly early in 2010, and open the way for another negotiating round on a global treaty next year. "If there is no commitment, of course we will have no deal in Copenhagen ," Jo Leinen of Germany , the head of the European Parliament's environment committee, said Thursday in Washington . "An ambitious reduction target is the key," he said. The other part, he added, is an agreement by the U.S. to join other rich countries in helping to pay for the world's poorest countries — not China , but less industrialized nations — to develop clean energy and adapt to inevitable climate change. Leinen said that if all six Senate committees with a say in the bill finished their work before the Dec. 7-18 talks, that might be enough to give international negotiators a sense of what the U.S. was willing to do. In that case, it could be possible to continue the talks early next year to fill in the details of what countries will do, he said. The legislation before the Senate , like a bill that passed the House of Representatives in June, would cap emissions and provide funding for climate assistance. It would set a limit on emissions that ratchets down each year until it reaches an 83 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2050. It also would require power plants and other large sources of emissions to buy pollution permits. Most of the money would go to subsidize consumers and industries for increased fuel costs, and to encourage the development of clean energy. Some also would go to help poor nations adapt to climate change. U.S. negotiator Todd Stern , speaking to members of Congress in September, urged the Senate to act, saying, "Nothing the United States can do is more important for the international negotiation process than passing robust, comprehensive clean-energy legislation as soon as possible." However, it appears unlikely that the full Senate will vote on the measure this year because lawmakers want to finish overhauling health care first. The Bush administration opposed mandatory cuts in emissions. Joseph Romm , who was an acting assistant energy secretary in the Clinton administration, said the Obama administration couldn't turn everything around in less than a year. "Given the last eight years, anybody thinking there was going to be a deal in Copenhagen wasn't paying attention," Romm said. There has been progress, however, he said. "We've not only seen China stepping up but Indonesia , Brazil , Mexico . So I think that is all positive," Romm said. If all the other largest sources of emissions agree that they'll no longer allow unlimited emissions, the Senate either must pass a bill or it will be blocking a historic international agreement, he said. Some countries have made plans for significant emissions reductions. Others, notably China , seem to be waiting to see what the U.S. will do. Stern, the U.S. negotiator, said Wednesday in Shanghai that China and the U.S. were trying to make as much progress as possible before the Copenhagen negotiations. Obama will visit China on Nov. 15-18 . The world previously has agreed that developed countries must make specific emissions reductions and developing nations, including China , must slow the growth of their emissions over roughly the next 10 years and then make deeper cuts. China has closed small and inefficient coal-fired plants, launched huge development of renewable energy and nuclear power, planted trees and started to improve its energy efficiency, although the International Energy Agency projected in 2006 that it would surpass the U.S. as the globe's number one source of greenhouse gas emissions this year. President Barack Obama's principal environmental adviser, Nancy Sutley , contends that the administration has made steady progress on environmental initiatives. The administration set new fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles and put aside $80 billion in stimulus money for clean energy. The Department of Energy has set new energy-efficiency standards on appliances. The Department of Interior , which has jurisdiction over one-fifth of the nation's land, took action to develop renewable energy on public lands and offshore. The Environmental Protection Agency has been moving ahead with plans to regulate large sources of emissions if Congress fails to act. "Pretty much from Day One the president has made clean energy and dealing with climate change a priority for the administration," Sutley said.
basically, this topic goes down to "I want to see Obama fail" quite frankly, I felt the same way with Bush sometimes. though, as I'm not American or a self-avowed patriot, I guess my hypocrisy is somewhat lessened. but seriously, texx, we once argued about global warming and you flat out said that you didn't believe in it. It is just intellectually dishonest for you to claim to want progress in a field that you have stated before is no cause for alarm. just sayin
so what does that make Obama's party? The party of no change? The party of no progress? The party of no health care plan? The party of no climate change progress? The party of no end to the Iraq or Afghanistan wars? glass houses, brah
I want to see the liberal components of Obama's agenda fail. If he embraced an agenda that I believe in, then I would want to see that agenda succeed. It has nothing to do with "him". I am not familiar with bigtexxx's writings on this issue, but it is my experience that very few people reject the idea that the Earth has warmed in the most literal possible sense. What is uncertain is the extent to which man may have contributed to any warming that has occurred through our own activities. The "science" on this is spotty at best, and certainly not sufficiently thorough to justify completely reordering our economies or subjecting control of the energy industry to some UN mandated regulatory scheme. Most people who say they do not believe in global warming are actually referring to the leftist theories relating to anthropomorphic global warming (AGW). This is the man-made component of a longer term warming trend that goes back thousands of years, certainly well before the industrial revolution.
The party that is cleaning up all the bloody messes that Bush made, so I guess they are the tampon party. While there have not been as many changes as I would like, saying "no change" is a bit hyperbolic, don't you think? There has neen more progress on several issues since Obama took over than we have seen in decades. See below for more. I will channel your brother at this point to say BWAHAHAHAHAHA. The GOP is the party with "no health care plan," in case you hadn't noticed, the Democrats are poised to pass their health care plan. You must mean more progress than any other administration in history because "no climate change progress" is simply a lie. Now you are going to chastise Obama for following GWB's exit plan for Iraq? You're a loon. No, not at all. Obama is night and day different from Bush, which does represent progress and change. Though I lament Obama's lack of action on "Don't ask, don't tell," disagree with his stance on illegal wiretapping, and wish he would put the teeth (and walls) back into Glass-Steagall, saying that Obama has made no progress or changes is simply false. Saying that he has made no progress on healthcare and climate change is lying. Now, try to come up with a logical argument that passes the common sense test, brah.
You were proven wrong on this in the climate change thread. Just because you don't accept scientific evidence doesn't make that evidence false.
Nothing was proven in the other thread. Just because you guys keep repeating this stuff does not make it true. It increasingly appears that you guys have reached the stage of silliness with regards to your devotion to this agenda. The Earth is now cooling, and none of the models used by AGW alarmists to promote their agenda have shown anything of the kind. In fact, they have all consistently predicted temperature increases. These forecasting models have been promoted loudly and proudly as the justification for imposing government control over the energy industry, not just here in the US, but worldwide. And this is not the first instance by any means of these models being wrong. Clearly, these models are just not trustworthy predictors of future climatic conditions. What about the hurricanes? The hurricane traffic was supposed to be running amok by now. After Hurricane Katrina, we were all told ad-nauseum that this was just the beginning, and that the number and severity of hurricanes would only get worse. In fact, the pre-hurricane season predictions of the number and intensity of hurricanes have been overstated in seven of the last nine years. However, despite prominent reports of impending doom to begin each hurricane season, the reports comparing the final tally to the original predictions has been very hard to find. Did we even have a hurricane season this year? I know we did, but where were the hurricanes? Now that the season is moving towards it annual conclusion (November 30), where are the reports about the exaggerated forecasts? I have not seen them. Anyone who has been watching the news coverage on global warming over the last ten years should have noticed by now that whenever the temperatures warm in a certain spot in the ocean, or the Arctic ice cap recedes, or a heat wave comes through, that is cited by AGW alarmists and the MSM as evidence of AGW. However, any and all evidence of cooling in certain spots in the ocean, expansion of the Antarctic ice cap, or unusually cool weather patterns are, IN EVERY CASE, dismissed as anomalies. That is not a scientific approach to evaluating this issue. It is a political approach. Really now. The further implication from all this is that we require urgent action by the GOVERNMENT to fix it. What has the government ever fixed? The government does not have the capacity to "fix" the world's climate. And based on the quality of work that we daily watch our government and the United Nations produce, we would be absolute fools to entrust them with such an unprecedentedly large and delicate responsibility as this. Any thoughtful and honest person knows that these people can only be counted on to line their own pockets, and those of their close associates, with the money appropriated to this exercise. If the plans advocated by the UN were passed and implemented, this would turn into a festival of corruption and incompetence the likes of which the world has never seen. And what is it about the weather 10 or 20 years ago that makes it the optimal climatic conditions that we should be striving for? Nothing, that is what. As far as the topic of the thread, it does not look like anything is going to get done in Copenhagen. The cap and trade bill is in trouble in the senate, just like the healthcare bill. And no one believes that the cap and trade bill, in any of the forms that have been discussed, has any chance at all of altering the climate in any noticeable or measurable way. If this bill were to be passed, it would serve as a guilt offering for whatever past environment sins are being attributed to us, and nothing more. As far as this bill's potential effect on the actual climate, that is widely recognized as absolutely nothing.
Gladioto, you didn't prove anything with your last post. It lacked substance. I'm still left scratching my head as to what Obama has accomplished.
If you wouldn't quote him, I wouldn't have to see him refuse again everything I kindly posted for him in that thread. Basically all of his points were put to rest, scientifically, and I even presented the best argument for someone who wanted to fight the anti-carbon movement. Oh well. I hope he is consistent and imbibing as much cholesterol as possible, with due haste.
STRAW. MAN. Go back and look at the posts from that time here. It was repeated ad nauseum that short term fluctuations in weather were independent of the climate, and that Katrina had nothing to do with global warming. I heard the same from every legitimate scientist who was interviewed on TV/radio/print. Nobody at all reputable attributed Katrina to global warming.
If you look again, you will observe that nowhere did I suggest that anyone had attributed Katrina to global warming. However, increased hurricane activity has consistently been predicted as a byproduct of anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) by the proponents of this theory. Moreover, hurricane forecasts have consistently predicted increased hurricane activity over the last 10 years. But as it turns out, the predictions from these models have generally exceed the actual activity, as was the case again this year. My larger point was the reliability of these climatic models. They have never been demonstrated to accurately predict future climatic conditions. Not with regards to temperature trends, hurricane activity, ice melt, or anything for that matter. Remember the articles this last spring that were predicting the probable thaw of the Arctic ice cap, in its entirety, for the first time in our lifetimes, this year? Whatever happened to that anyway? Well, the ice cap increased in size compared to last summer. And last summer the ice cap increased in size from the previous summer. The images are from the following article by the BBC: Pause in Arctic's melting trend But according to the AGW alarmists, this is all an anomaly that should not be considered next their AGW theories because ...yada yada yada.... The predictive models failed again, just like they did with regards to the cooling temperature trend and the lower hurricane activity trend. People who want to make an informed evaluation of the reliability of the currently popular AGW theories will want to consider the performance record of these predictive models.
The Bush Admin greatly bumped funding to the NIH, and later to the NSF a bit. They also finally embraced the idea that human activity was very probably contributing to climate change. But they have these leftovers, and it resonates with those prone to conspiracy theory syndrome or I-am-better-at-science-than-scientists syndrome. Mix in a few portions of my-luxury-SUV-is-so-comfy syndrome, and there you have it.
Well, he's further along then Clinton on health care reform. Got that gay rights anti-bigotry bill signed. Cut the F22 spending program. Reset the Russian-American relationship. His polices have proven to have a dramatic effect on the recession and the recession has reversed. Dow is around 10000. Dismantled the missile shield; which coincidentally enough now NATO, the Czechs, the Russians and pretty much everyone except for Iran love. Managed to get concessions from Iran on nuclear refining. Permitted Veteran Affairs to set advance budgets Authorized use of force in Somalia, directly leading to rescue of American hostages Vastly improved FEMA efficiency Just recently lifted travel restrictions on people suffering from AIDS/HIV Overturned archaic Bush Administration restrictions on stem cells just off the top of my head I'm ridiculously biased, so you can interpret these however you wish. BUT, I think with each passing day, this "head-scratching over accomplishment-doing" should be replaced with "terror at gradual communist takeover".
The Democrats control 60 votes in the Senate, a large majority in the House, and the highly exalted Democratic hero Barack Obama is the current President of the United States. Clearly, the Democrats are in complete control of Washington. They have the votes to pass anything they want to, and the Republicans are completely powerless to stop them. Nevertheless, per the Washington Post, the extremely urgent and all important 'climate' bill looks like it is probably not going to be able to pass in the Senate. With the Democrats in complete and total control, they obviously have no one to blame but themselves. But of course, they are sure to try and shift the blame anyway, because that is what liberals do whenever things do not go the way they want. Mark it down.
In order to try and dis-spell the falsehood that the planet is in a cooling trend: It is scientifically proven that we are not. It is scientifically proven that the gradual warming of the planet goes in waves with peaks and valleys - with the peaks and the valleys increasing in temperature if you take a larger sampling than the last three years. Measuring processes of the globe from a sample of three years is obviously not a scientific basis for coming to conclusions in respect to the globe's climate. The notion presented that there is evidence that we are in a "cooling trend" is false and a twisting of the scientific data to conform it to support a specific agenda.
