Comments on: House Passes Global Warming Bill

Sweeping Legislation Calls For First-Ever Limits On Pollution Linked To Climate Change

[connunism]

hclinton2012 = SOUTHERNER = FASCIST!

[connunism]

"the Repuglicons are the TWIST AND SHOUT CROWD" = FASCISTS!

[hclinton2012]

by NegatoryInhale June 27, 2009 7:46 AM PDT

This Piece of garbage will never become law. Obama called this a "jobs bill"?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to inform you, but it will pass the Senate, they will "buy out" enough Republicans, like Snow and Collins to get it through the Senate. I will become law and then watch the Unemployment go from 12% to over 30%, with one big corporation after another going overseas to do any kind of business? What a JOKE this LOSER of a President Barack Obama and the Democrats have become?

[connunism]

hclinton2012 = SOUTHERNER = FASCIST!

[ubrew12]

Umm. I'll watch, but I won't hold my breath.

[dennisall77]

I have a new term for us to use... the Repuglicons are the TWIST AND SHOUT CROWD.... they twist the words from others and then shout them about, thinkin that shouting will make them seem more important and true. It is the same method use by Hitler... since we are going to lie anyway, make it a really big lie and more people will believe it, especially if someone (like Hitler) will scream and shout and get very upset (instead of dispassionate, intellectual discourse (which the poor would never understand, Hitler reasoned)).

Some on the right have tried to liken Obama with Hitler because both are/were excellent orators. Of course, Hitler was frenzied and Obama is ultra-cool, but who does the right claim was the GREATEST orator? Reagan. And do we DARE compare HIM to Hitler? LOL

[connunism]

"the Repuglicons are the TWIST AND SHOUT CROWD" = FASCISTS!

[bajajohn1]

Boehnhead is the dumbest Republican on the planet.

[Newster1]

The legislation, totaling about 1,200 pages, would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and about 80 percent by the next century."

By 2020 this country will easily have 17% MORE PEOPLE, and 17% more people translates intoo 17% more homes, cars on the roads and 17% more food needded to be grown, transported, processed and stored.
The US had 150 million in 1950, over 305 million now, in 11 more years with present growth rates the census page says this;

"Based on the middle-series projections, the Nation's population is projected to increase to 392 million by 2050 -- more than a 50 percent increase from the 1990 population size. "

So reducing carbon by 17% by 2020 isnt going to do squat when we will be adding at least that much more users to the grid, the impact on the planet will still rise!

"U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are rising at about 1 percent a year and are predicted to continue increasing without mandatory caps."

Which translates to 11% by 2020, and with the "reduction" mandated of 17% from current, it's at best -6% reduction. The answer is not reducing use, the answer is capping the BIRTH RATE so we dont HAVE 396 million people (91 million MORE than today) in 2050!!!
91 Million more mouths to feed translates into the addition of 12 cities the size of New York City in just 40 years.

[bajajohn1]

True to form Republican, there will be no growth ever in America by the year 2020. Go to work and increase our GNP instead of spitting out silly notions that no growth will occur in people's incomes.

[bajajohn1]

Susan, some people here, like Gonzales, have no concept of science. One would guess that all the gases that are emitted from vehicles and smokestacks just dissipate and disappear. Gonzales needs to understand, that those gases are just converted mass. That means, that if they are solidified once could actually carry them. So where does he thinks this mass in the form of gas goes? It goes to the ozone layer. One has to wonder, whether the Republicans, who are bought and paid for by big oil and coal industries, have another planet in mind for the earth population to move, should this planet become unliveable. Another side effect of this legislation is to free ourselves from the negative associations related to the oil-producing Middle East.

[gravyboat3000]

This isn't necessary. If GM, Chrystler, Ford, as well as the Japanese automakers are going into high gear to bring us electric cars, why do we need this legislation?

And it's not like China, Russia, or any other major poluters are gonna follow suit.

This President, and the Dems are startin to pizz me off.

Don't we have more inportant things to spend money on?

I hate all politicians.

I'm going now, my flight for Buenas Aires is boarding, don't wanna keep my mistress waiting...

[bajajohn1]

America voted for this type of "change." The Repubs are out of power because they are owned, bought and paid for, by the very same people who oppose progress. They like the status quo of no stem-cell research, no initiative to begin to addressing global warming with the collateral product of freeing ourselves from foreign oil; no the Repubs would like nothing better than to return to their crooked, greedy practices of trying to sink America.

[bajajohn1]

There is a major difference between the current era of climate change the last recorded period of climate change. Now we have about a billion, carbon dioxide spewing combustion engines in cars, trucks, planes and other type vehicles roaming the earth. Add to that smokestack industries fueled by coal and one gets a sense that that mass in gaseous form has to go somewhere. That somewhere is the ozone layer. During the last climate change era, one could rely on ample quantities of animal and human manure along with decomposing plants to emit the carbon dioxide. See the difference?

[rednomo]

The far right prides themselves on their ignorance of facts and supporting big business over everyday working Americans every single time, who was fighting this bill? Big Oil and Big Coal. Who is fighting health care reform? Big Pharm and Big Insurance HMOs. If you doubt what I'm saying just look at the money that the top Republicans have received from all the above.

Conservatives have been tied to big business since the very beginning and if you are not making over $250 a year you are an idiot to support them because they would not p!ss on you if you were on fire.

A History Lesson:

The Birth of Ultraconservatives

One of the most important, and most overlooked, legacies of Texas Oil has been its contribution to the growth of right-wing policies and politicians, especially in their most radical guises. In the decades after the big Texas oil strikes, the state?s oil millionaires would channel tens of millions of dollars into new conservative causes, bankrolling everything from mainstream Republican think tanks to Senator Joseph McCarthy?s red-baiting campaigns of the 1950s to extremist groups that openly espoused racism and anti-Semitism; later, oil money helped bankroll the birth of the religious right. In a very real sense, the influence of Texas conservatives in America today ? in fact, the entire ?Texanization? of right-wing politics that brought figures such as George W. Bush and Tom DeLay to national prominence ? can be traced to forces set into motion by restive Texas oilmen during the 1930s.

Modern Texas conservatism sprang from the intersection of two disparate events: FDR?s New Deal and the Depression-era oil discoveries, especially those in Texas. The New Deal outraged many Texas oilmen and they gave huge amounts of money to fight it. Each oilman had his own pet peeve, but in general conservative fury was fueled by a fear of what is know today as ?big government,? and deep-seated southern racism.

Political, if not always socially, the big oilmen moved easily into the society of oligarchs who controlled the state. Before oil the greatest Texas fortunes were made in ranching and East Texas lumber, where success depended on exploiting the labor of blacks, Latinos, and poor whites ? the same formula necessary to succeed in the state?s other industries such as sulfur mining and farming. The men who ran Texas oversaw a hierarchical, plantation-style culture, ruled by southern aristocracy dedicated to harvesting the earth while keeping its workers subservient and poorly educated.

Texas oilmen shared a deep loathing of taxes, labor organizers, and anyone who looked to change their ways. FDR was the first president since Reconstruction to try, at least indirectly during the Great Depression. By the mid-1930s taxes were rising. Homeowners received protection against foreclosures, which angered real estate and banking interests. New labor standards and the growth of unions drove up wages, and thus the cost of doing business. Poor families received jobs from federal Works Progress Administration, sucking power from political bosses. Farm programs hellped millions of families bit upset the fragile relationship with landlords. Worse, the Roosevelts made public shows helping blacks and other minorities, which didn?t sit well with southerners who could still be surprisingly candid in support for white supremacy. Everywhere Texas oilmen looked, it seemed, the federal government was poking its nose into their affairs, they began to refer to it as ?creeping socialism.?

From, ?The Big Rich? by Bryan Burrough

[specialty8]

If Gore cared he would start unplugging some of those swimmining pools. His mansion uses enough energy for a city block all paid for by the tax payer because he never has worked but in the public trough.
The new slogan will be "please save, make more for Gore".

[dmwj2]

Health Care ? for all you guys out there ranting that public heath care is a bad idea because it will lead to:

Rationing of care
Bureaucrats deciding what care you get
Less choice in choosing a provider
Long waits for care
Denial of care
Lower quality of care
?

We are already there? it is called HMO and PPO, brought to you by BIG BUSINESS that only looks at the bottom line, and what the profit margin is?

[Maddmann3]

We are in serious trouble now

[dmwj2]

Public Ed - Why is it that the far right is against public ed? What would we do without it? Most families cannot afford private ed? So what do we do with those kids? Let the roam the streets begging, as soon as there are able to walk? I just do not understad this attitude that public ed is a BAD idea...?

I started 1st grade when I was 5 years old...public ed would not accept me at 5, so I started in a private school. I transferred to public school for second grade, and guess what... I was 4 levels behind in reading ability. By 7th grade, I was in advanced classes, and went on to graduate in the top 10% of my class. Later, I went on to graduate Magna *** Laude with a BS in CIS from state college.

In all my experience with public ed, I found that the teachers were great, for the most part... some were better than others, but all seemed to truly want to help me succeed in life.

So... I just cannot see how anyone can say that public ed is a failure. It DID NOT fail me, or anyone in my family.

[ubrew12]

Gore was pointing out a 600,000 year old close correlation between the two (temperature and CO2), and then noting that ONE of the two (CO2) is now WAY out of bounds. He leaves for the viewer to imagine, given that 600,000 year old correlation, what happens next...

The mechanism whereby CO2 increases temperature (rather than the other way around) is called the greenhouse effect. Its well known since 1820 and is not seriously questioned by anyone, including climate change deniers. So, if the greenhouse effect is real, and if CO2 is a major greenhouse gas, and if CO2 levels have increased by 50% since 1850, then... (come on, I know you can do it).

Extra credit: if human-caused CO2 acts to warm the ocean via the greenhouse effect, would the oceans response be a positive or negative feedback, given its likeness to a can of soda?

Extra extra credit: if human-caused CO2 acts to warm the ocean so that it evaporates more water vapor into the atmosphere, would this be a positive or negative feedback, given the fact that water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas in our atmosphere?

I think you've just convinced yourself that human-caused Global Warming can roll out of control. We can start something that nature finishes (and we just hope she doesn't finish US in the process).

[Wolf1944]

Stick to your guns, Susan. Here in Florida, we're looking at losing a lot of the state to rising sea levels. This bill is just the beginning of what we need.

[cbs4111]

Most Americans, just like their Representatives in Congress, will never know what's in this bill. Democrats will blindly think it good, and Republicans will think it bad. However, most everyone agrees, for one reason or another, that this bill will do nothing for the climate. The Chinese will continue to pump out CO2, so will the Russians, the Brazilians, and the Indians. Most Americans don't yet know, but it has been determined CO2 didn't drive changes in the Earth's temperature - temperature went up first from other causes and then CO2 increased after the temperature went up, not the other way around. If you look close, even Al Gore's data shows this! Everyone also already knows why - warm oceans release CO2 exactly the way a warm soda loses its fizz (the fizz in soda is CO2 dissolved in water). CO2 dissolves in cold water better than in warm.

One thing is for sure, adding another layer of bureaucracy will make energy more expensive. This winter, when it's as cold as it ever was and we can't afford to heat our homes, it won't go unnoticed. When people start to question the value of this bill, the representatives that passed it will look pretty darn stupid.

[ubrew12]

Gore was pointing out a 600,000 year old close correlation between the two (temperature and CO2), and then noting that ONE of the two (CO2) is now WAY out of bounds. He leaves for the viewer to imagine, given that 600,000 year old correlation, what happens next...

The mechanism whereby CO2 increases temperature (rather than the other way around) is called the greenhouse effect. Its well known since 1820 and is not seriously questioned by anyone, including climate change deniers. So, if the greenhouse effect is real, and if CO2 is a major greenhouse gas, and if CO2 levels have increased by 50% since 1850, then... (come on, I know you can do it).

Extra credit: if human-caused CO2 acts to warm the ocean via the greenhouse effect, would the oceans response be a positive or negative feedback, given its likeness to a can of soda?

Extra extra credit: if human-caused CO2 acts to warm the ocean so that it evaporates more water vapor into the atmosphere, would this be a positive or negative feedback, given the fact that water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas in our atmosphere?

I think you've just convinced yourself that human-caused Global Warming can roll out of control. We can start something that nature finishes (and we just hope she doesn't finish US in the process).

[ubrew12]

The recent Copenhagen update to the IPCC's Global Warming report in 2007 makes this statement: "any warming caused will be virtually irreversible for at least a thousand years - because of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere."

also: "The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007"

also: "Temperature rises above 2 C will be difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and are likely to cause major societal and environmental disruptions..."

124 nations have officially declared their support for the goal of limiting warming to 2 C or less, including the EU -but unfortunately not yet the US.