Obama Presses For Climate Bill

In Rose Garden, President Says Legislation Will Create New Jobs, Says Opposition Is Due To "Misinformation"

(AP)  President Barack Obama is pressing again for passage of U.S. legislation that would confront the problem of global warming head-on.

Speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House, Obama said Washington must not miss the opportunity to work on cleaning the air and at the same time creating new "green" energy jobs. He called the measure "a jobs bill" and said the U.S. for far too long has been too reliant on energy from fossil fuels.

The White House has seemed concerned that momentum for the bill is slipping away. Obama said "I know this is going to be a close vote because there is misinformation out there." He spoke as House Democratic leaders scurried to line up enough votes to get the bill passed there, possibly as early as Friday.

Republicans largely oppose the bill before House members, arguing that it amounts to a massive energy tax.

[crackhour]

I suppose the recent news that many other planets in our solar system are also experiencing temp increases means nothing. Now I'm no Einstein, but that would seem to suggest it has more to do with the sun, unless of course the people on those planets drive suv's too. If there's one thing I've learned in life when it comes to figuring out the truth it's to follow the money. Who has more to gain? It's certainly not the scientists who are disputing so called Man-made Global Warming. I don't disagree with being good Stewards of the planet, but I strongly disagree with having ******** rammed down my throat.

[crackhour]

I suppose the recent news that many other planets in our solar system are also experiencing temp increases means nothing. Now I'm no Einstein, but that would seem to suggest it has more to do with the sun, unless of course the people on those planets drive suv's too. If there's one thing I've learned in life when it comes to figuring out the truth it's to follow the money. Who has more to gain? It's certainly not the scientists who are disputing so called Man-made Global Warming. I don't disagree with being good Stewards of the planet, but I strongly disagree with having ******** rammed down my throat.

[ArmandB]

All this logical, well thought argument is lost on Congress....they don't even read the bills they sign. Their boss says sign and they sign...and if the minority gets to put some pork in the bill, they will sign too.
We need term limits, and a new party or two.

[dartplayer501]

Why don't one of you loons go shoot Al Gore, then all talk of GW will cease as he seems to be the sole cause of it.

I saw the football field analogy above for the amount of CO2 - the actual number is 385 ppm which actually equates to 2 inches in 100 yards. If you don't think that can make difference ask any running back who failed to get in on 4th and inches.

OK, so GW could be a natural sun oscillation. Ice doesn't care WHAT warms it up, it still MELTS. Do we just hold up our hands and cry uncle?

[ubrew12]

The actual CO2 number is 250ppm. The 385ppm number is todays number, the 250ppm number is the historical number (i.e. its been 250ppm for most of the last 600,000 years). That's a 50% increase in a major Greenhouse Gas. I'd stop to explain what a Greenhouse Gas is, but your football field analogy proves you to be so hopelessly out of touch with science that what would be the point of my trying?

[specialty8]

When will this tax come into effect? I can bet you it will be after the 2010 elections. The libs want to grab all they can before the bills comes due and then just like poor ole Jimmy Carter the party is over.

[specialty8]

Maybe if Gore would unplug one of his five heated swimming pools and stop using enough energy at his mansion to heat a city block, the temp would go a few. Every body save, Al needs more.

[andylance1]

Fantasy Land: Unchecked climate change will cause a mass extinction. If we don't surrender our wallets to Pelosi and company we will all die.

Some people have swallowed Gore's apocalyptic version of the future. His tactic has been to scare little children and adults with immature minds.

[DaVicar5]

A "Climate Bill" ? ? ?
Give me a BREAK! The "Tax-and-Trade" philosophy will do nothing but continue to punish people in America who work hard to earn a living. This so-called "administration" needs to get their hands OFF American industry - stop trying to PUNISH us for being prosperous, and let companies be responsible ON THEIR OWN!!!

[tbbaot]

The global warming question is just that. There are scientists on both sides that have impressive scientific backgrounds that line up on both for and against man's contribution. The thing that sets things apart is the Al Gore's of the world that are trying to jam global warming down our throats. Now Obama and the progressives propose the biggest tax in the history of the world and refuse to let the debate run it's course. Isn't it always the far left that is the most close-minded when it comes to government policy?

[Aldymac]

Hitler hid the truth to gain power, then when he had all the power he wanted, he hid the truth to keep what he had gained. I see no difference between the democrats now and Hitler then.

[endurorob]

Obama said "I know this is going to be a close vote because there is misinformation out there.


Of course he failed to mention that the misinformation is comng from the White House.

[juwboy]

Which of the following extreme climate conditions causes more deaths?

(A) a cold winter
(B) a hot summer

The answer is (A) by a huge margin.

So, why aren`t we doing everything we possibly can to promote and accelerate global warming until the numbers of cold and hot weather deaths are comparable?

That`s when our planet will have its ideal, optimum temperature.

[crackhour]

And it's no coincidence that the greatest explosion of life on the planet happened when co2 levels were at their highest. CO2 is good for life, so is a tropical climate. What the hell are you all afraid of anyway? But you go ahead and spend your trillions of dollars to find out that oranges don't grow in the cold. MMMM I can taste it now, fresh lichens for breakfast.

[libftw]

Socialism, it's what's for breakfast. And before you get all cranky, I live in a 800 sq ft house (smaller than one of Gore's garages), have one child (no population growth is the only real hope) and got a job close to home (fillup the car once every other month) I live BELOW my means and have my own retirement covered. I don't believe the government owes me anything but roads and national defence. Beyond that only causes more trouble than it solves.

This is nothing but a power grab by the National Socialists.

[cbs4111]

This time it's Obama spreading disinformation.

There is no impending climate catastrophe, that's just fear mongering.

Creating "green" jobs by subsidizing windmills is like creating jobs in agriculture by subsidizing the horse-drawn plow. See how stupid "green" jobs sound now?

Windmills kill birds. The single wind farm at Altamont pass kills hundreds of golden and bald eagles each year. In 2006, it killed 39 of the 500 nesting bald eagles in the area. WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANYONE THINK THAT WINDMILLS ARE "GREEN"????

It's astounding how ignorant Obama is - it's obvious that his education in law didn't teach him anything useful at all.

[Aldymac]

I read an article last monday that was telling of the Europeans finding that "green" jobs were at best "temporary" jobs. Because the technology simply isn't perfected enough to go ahead with anything.
The electronics needed for all the alternative projects in themselves are users of some of the most toxic chemicals in the world, even the windmills need the electronics.
All the billions of dollars put into studys of alternative energy has produced only a better lifestyle for environmentalists involved in the studys, what we know now has been obtained by individuals who stepped out on their own and spent their own money in research.
No transition between oil and alternatives is nothing more than a scam by polititions and environmentalists, and we are their targets.

[formerdem-2009]

What a load of crap!!! The real source of misinformation is Obi-wan himself. Do you people REALLY beleive this is going cost you what he says it will? You voted for change LOL Change it is and we will all be paying for it for a long time

[Gary_in_Seabeck]

There has been atmospheric cooling the last 7 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. Anthropogenic (man caused) global warming is not proved. They base their arguments on computer models composed of equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then all these equations have to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional constant for each law, theory, and hypothesis. The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Based on known laws, accepted theories, and data, come up with a hypothesis. (2) Develop a plan to obtain new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication. With the general circulation models (also known as general climate models or GCMs) the output of the computer models is considered to be data, but it is not. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the model are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W. Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.

[1notrub11]

Nicely stated. From one scientist (me) to another (?), I have to agree that the scientific method is completely missing from arguments presented on global warming.

I am sure if they tried hard enough, the same people could prove to everyone that a square is actually a circle.

[ubrew12]

The greenhouse effect is accepted science. And CO2's role in the greenhouse effect is also accepted science. If you increase CO2 by 50% in the atmosphere over 150 years (which is what has happened), quite frankly the burden of scientific proof should be on those who insist NOTHING will happen, rather than on those who believe something WILL happen. It simply flies in the face of all logic to think you can mess with the atmosphere to THAT degree and expect nothing to happen.

And if you want to attack that position, attack the science of the greenhouse effect. Insist it doesn't work the way scientists think it works, or something like that. I know of no physical phenomenon where a forcing variable as obvious as CO2's on the atmosphere can be increased by 50% without have an effect.

Now, you may say that the measured rise in atmospheric temperature over the last 100 years is purely anecdotal or unrelated, as is the fact that the arctic is losing its ice mass, or that Glacier National Park will soon have no reason for its name. Or you can admit that increasing a major greenhouse gas by 50% SHOULD have some discernible effect on the atmosphere, and that these may, in fact, be those effects. To me, to make the former claim requires MUCH more convoluted logic than to make the latter. As Einstein said, the simpler explanation is the right one.

[andylance1]

Cap-and-trade is three card monte. The public simply cannot afford an extra energy tax. Utility bills are too high, now.

It is believed there is almost a limitless supply of natural gas and oil in the eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida and the bozos in Washington refuse to authorize drilling there. For some families in Florida, they have to decide whether or not to pay their electric bill or buy food.

[sjc_1]

Using less fossil fuel is its own reward. The air is cleaner, we import less oil, we have better energy security and we save more for later. We should be using renewable energy now and save the fossil energy for later.

[philcoom]

Here's some things this writer conveniently left out:
The DRAFT version of this Bill was 648 pages long!! Now the bill is over 1,100 pages long!!! Is congress going to be asked to push this bill through as quickly as possible again? The draft version was unbelievable in what our legislators were attempting to do. In addition to CO2 limits, it controls what kind of light bulbs you can buy, it places taxes on far more industries than just CO2 emitters, it takes our tax money and allows government to buy up private land (while our governemnt is in debt??), it takes our tax money and funnels it to foreign governments for their global warming schemes. This is the kind of bill that deserves defeat and the sponsors should be removed from office for wasting their time on and our tax money on. It was created by Waxman and Markey, both are career politicians who hold thier on personal agendas above the people they are supposed to represent.

[1notrub11]

Yes, yes and yes. Philcoom is doing everyone an important service pointing these facts out.

Furthermore, from what I have been told, one should check out pages in the 800-900 area of the newly lengthened bill. Reportedly, this part of the bill contains an "energy tax credit" that automatically pays funds to all people who fall into the income category of less than or equal to 150% of the poverty level by direct deposit.

Now I don't know about you, but I personally strongly oppose using any such "energy bill" to be a supplement income or to effectively be welfare.