Republicans Boycott Climate Bill Debate

Absent Senators Argue Costs of Bill to Address Global Warming; Democrats Say Move is a Delaying Tactic

(AP)  Updated 12:38 p.m. ET

Republicans boycotted the start of committee debate Tuesday on a bill to curb greenhouse gases, protesting that the bill's costs have not been fully examined. The action put a spotlight on the difficulties Democratic leaders face in moving climate legislation this year.

Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio attended the session for 15 minutes to explain the GOP's argument for staying away. He insisted the tactic "is not a ruse" to block the bill, but concern that its widespread impact on the country has not been made clear.

But Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the panel's chairman, argued the EPA already has provided "a full blown economic analysis" and that Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised further studies when the bill is merged with other legislation. She insisted, "We're not rushing. We are taking our time."

Climate Bill Faces High Hurdles in Senate

Africans Boycott U.N. Climate Meetings

The partisan rift in the Environment and Public Works Committee, which delayed votes on amendments to the legislation, exposed the sharp divisions in the Senate over how to address global warming. Democrats also have been split on the issue. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who said he had deep reservations about the bill also was absent.

Boxer had hoped to push the legislation out of her committee this week, so it could be merged with provisions from five other committees and demonstrate to the world some progress in Congress before the international climate conference begins in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel in an address to Congress said Tuesday there is "no time to lose" when it comes to global warming and that the United States and Europe must lead if an international agreement on curtailing greenhouse gases is to be achieved. She said if developed countries act, she expects China and India to take action as well.

She made the same plea to President Barack Obama at the White House earlier in the day — as did European Union leaders in separate meetings at the White House. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso called an international climate deal "a defining moment" for this generation of world leaders.

Obama has repeatedly called on Congress to pass climate legislation. But the issue has become bogged down in the Senate over strong opposition from Republicans — and some Democrats as well — who fear the loss of jobs and higher energy prices.

The Democratic bill calls for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and industrial facilities 20 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by mid-century. Polluters would be given pollution permits that they could trade among themselves to ease the economic effect of the transition from fossil fuels.

"This is not a ruse to prevent this committee from marking up a climate bill. Rather this is a genuine attempt ... to have the best information available as we debate and amend the bill that will have consequences for every person in the country," said Voinovich whose state is especially vulnerable because of its reliance on coal and manufacturing base. He said an analysis by the EPA cited by Boxer was inadequate, made "unrealistic assumptions" and was based on a House-passed bill that he said is significantly different from the bill before the Senate panel.

But Boxer disagreed and said the bill she has co-authored along with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was "90 percent the same" as the House version that has been fully examined by the EPA. That EPA analysis estimates modest cost to households from higher energy prices of $80 to $111 a year.

"There is no reason at all for additional analysis and spend more taxpayer dollars doing it when the work has been done," said Boxer. She called the GOP boycott a delaying tactic and promised, "we're going to be here every day until they join us."

Democrats have a 12-7 majority in the committee and enough votes to advance the measure. But an attempt by Boxer to ram the bill through committee without Republican participation could backfire when the measure gets to the floor where it will be combined with other climate legislation.

On Monday, the ranking Republicans on five other committees that will have some say in climate legislation also called the EPA analysis unsatisfactory and said senators should not be expected to vote on a bill "without a full and complete analysis of the likely effects." They warned in a letter to Boxer that failure to accommodate GOP senators seeking further studies "would severely damage rather than help" the chances of getting the bipartisan support needed to get a bill through the Senate.

[deftfixer]

Here Consider:

"... little noticeable benefit to the climate ... a multibillion-dollar windfall for ... biggest polluters."

+ Money and Lobbyists Hurt European Efforts to Curb Gases / NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/worldbusiness/11carbon.html?_r=1


"Policymakers have settled on 'emissions trading' as their favorite global-warming fix. But it isn't working."

+ The Carbon Folly / Newsweek

http://www.newsweek.com/id/36517


+ Cap-and-trade bill is second rate--LA Times Opinion

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/25/opinion/ed-captrade25


"... industrial emissions are well out-pacing even the most aggressive forecasts ... ... the IPCC's 2007 climate assessment failed to account for potentially devastating feedback cycles ..."

+.Burning rainforests, melting Tundra could accelerate global warming well beyond current projections / mongabay.com

"The world is investing too much cash and hope in carbon capture and storage.

+ The illusion of clean coal / The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=13235041



+ Trouble in store, carbon capture and storage / The Economist,

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=13226661

+ The Dirty Truth About Clean Coal / BusinessWeek,

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_26/b4090055452749.htm

+ The Dirt on Clean Coal / The Nation

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090413/berman

"The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics."

+ Nuclear's CO2 cost 'will climb' / BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7371645.stm

Yet: "... even after controlling the greenhouse effect, the earth would warm up due to heat wasted from energy use. ... solution lies in using renewable sources that don?t add extra heat to the planet."

Energy waste causing another global warming / One World South Asia

http://southasia.oneworld.net/todaysheadlines/energy-waste-causing-another-global-warming/?searchterm=energy

"A German study has found children under five are at 60% greater risk of getting cancer and 120% greater risk of getting leukemia if they live within five kilometers of a nuclear power station."

+ German Study: More Childhood Cancer Near Nuclear Power Plants / Nuclear Monitor:

http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nm664.pdf

Colossal Magnetic Levitation Wind Turbine = Permanent Magnets = 20% more power + 50% less cost = low-center-of-gravity = perfect for offshore = areas surrounding the US = 24/7 = US Dept. of Energy says offshore could meet current US demand!!!

http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/11/26/super-powered-magnetic-wind-turbine-maglev/


+ Popular Science's 20th Annual Best of What's New Awards / Nanosolar Homepage:

"Nanosolar has created an ink that takes sunlight and converts it into electricity. The ink is coated onto metal sheets as thin as aluminum foil with a printing-press-like device. The sheets are lighter, inexpensive and as efficient as traditional solar panels."

Wind/Solar = Clean Hydrogen for Power Plants (for "rainy days")

[Stop_the_crying]

Let the republicans suck on auto tail pipes for a while. Then they might get the idea. The party of NO strikes again.

[stuart-johns2]

Every reputable scientist in the world agrees that we are experiencing global warming. Look at the ice caps yourself if you want proof.

The republicans boycotting this is no surprise. They boycott anything Obama wants to do so as to see him fail.

Republicans SUCK! (and their stupid)

[stuart-johns2]

They're stupid.

[Stop_the_crying]

The party of NO strikes again. Was this a command from the leader RUSH. He's the one everyone follows. They, the repub's, all have there heads up his back side so far that they can see out of his belly button.

[timdgrim]

The GOP (Greedy Oil Party) will never consider a change for cleaner energy until every drop of Dinosaur Juice is sucked out. That Elephant, that is the GOP logo, would be more appropriate being a Dinosaur. Dead and Decayed!

[fiberglass3]

timdgrim - I believe that you are right. While most of us see "Green" as getting away from oil, Washington needs to realize this also. We see hybrid as only a step in the right direction toward electric transportation. Paying $ 2.75 a gallon to go 20- 25 miles keeps many of us off the roads.

[louiville35]

by j_mcdonald-2009 November 3, 2009 1:25 PM EST
I'm not a climate scientist, and only had about 15 minutes to read it, but I've found two major problems:

(1) Lindzen implies that raising sea surface temperatures would reduce long-wave radiation, implying some kind of infinite positive feedback mechanism -- completely bizarre and physically unrealistic.

(2) He adds a fudge-factor of 4 W/m^2/K in order to get his results:
?Also DSWR/DSST needs to be balanced with DOLR/DSST.
From the consideration, FLW = -DOLR/DSST + 4 and FSW = ? DSWR/DSST ? 4.?
Without that somewhat obscurely hidden and completely arbitrary tweak, his conclusions fall apart.

But, as I said, I'm not a climatologist, so maybe someone who is can correct me here...
===========================================================================
(1) he's making the opposite claim (see fig. 2).

(2) no it doesn't see first law of thermodynamics (hint most SWR is converted to OLR) and that is his resultant not his "Fudge" oh and BTW it's a -2 or did I miss something.

[briannorwood]

According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[28] was underwritten by OPEC.

ENOUGH SAID!

[chitown639]

Republicans are boycotting Climate Bill??? We have no time for this!!! We already are falling behind in the manufacturing aspect of going GREEN...China has already started a massive move towards manufacturing products like windmills and solar panals...by the time our Congress enacts a weak watered-down Climate Bill into law, the Chinesse will have flooded the market with their cheap Green products....the American workers will be the biggest loser again.......

[ubrew12]

China is going into electric buses in a big way (that use rechargeable batteries rather than overhead electric lines). They will work out the kinks in their designs and, when the U.S. finally gets its head out of its a**, they will be poised to dominate our mass-transit industry (which, of course, will have to be put on hyper-drive to make up for all the lost time and extra CO2). You are right to point out that other nations see massive opportunities where the U.S. sees only costs.

The proper phrase regarding green technologies right now is: "last one in is a rotten egg"

[lmartink]

Chitown -- You hit the nail on the head. Continued Republican obstruction will only work against us.

In the short term it will mean fewer jobs here, and more indebtedness to China.

In the long term, people like us need to educate our descendants about the party of "do nothing" and let them know that not everyone wanted to pass on a planet running a fever, and an impoverished world.

[midlclass]

the questions to ask are have the ice caps in both the aryic and antartic ever melted at this rate before? during mans time here has the northwest passage ever been open year round? are ocean levels going up? aare we really experiencing temp increases? if we are if there are scientist that can back this up and or not these are the people that should be going infront of congress and the EPA. the senators both republican and democrate should do there jobs by sitting down and LISTENING to the scientific debate not sitting out of it or boycotting it that is just shear ignorance! do your job repulican senators engage and debate, don't run like little chickens.

[ubrew12]

Earlier this year, an article in Science showed that the last time CO2 levels were THIS HIGH, global sea level was 75ft to 150ft higher than it is today. Its hard to just completely discount that kind of information, but the denier community does it.

[louiville35]

Your paper is referring to radiative feedbacks. As CO2 climbs the primary effect is a warming of the atmosphere (the paper says so explicitly). With a warmer atmosphere, more radiation will be emitted. But there's also more H2O and this can have both positive and negative feedback effects. The paper is trying to distinguish, based on the time of response, whether negative or positive feedback mechanisms predominate in the tropic atmosphere.

However, feedbacks are secondary responses to a primary impulse. The primary impulse is that rising CO2 causes the tropic atmosphere to go up in temperature. So nothing in your paper refutes the primary conclusion of global warming. Instead, it tries to determine the secondary feedback mechanisms that predominate after the primary mechanism, which can determine the 'extent of the damage' caused by the primary mechanism. It suggests these feedbacks are primarily negative, which is good, while the 11 climatological models suggested they were primarily positive.

Sounds like good research, but nothing that refutes the primary conclusion of GW, which is that it is real, human caused, and potentially serious.-by ubrew12 November 3, 2009 12:57 PM EST
========================================================================

You need to re-read your post, The AGW science is pretty clear when they claim that the Sun emissions make no difference. So according to your argument with a static solar out put to the earth we not only raise the temperature of the earth but also raise the output from the earth.

THE PROBLEM with that is, as any freshman physicist student can tell you, that violates energy balance. In other words that would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same.
energy cannot be created or destroyed in."

So what you are saying is you believe CO2 makes it's own heat.

[ubrew12]

I said no such thing and you know it. Your article talks to feedbacks. There are no feedbacks without feed; no secondary effects without primary ones. As such, the article never refutes the central claim of the GW deniers: that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has no affect in heating the atmosphere and earths surface. Because THAT is the primary impulse, and the paper restricts itself toward understanding the secondary responses.

[louiville35]

by ubrew12 November 3, 2009 2:34 PM EST
I said no such thing and you know it. Your article talks to feedbacks. There are no feedbacks without feed; no secondary effects without primary ones. As such, the article never refutes the central claim of the GW deniers: that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has no affect in heating the atmosphere and earths surface. Because THAT is the primary impulse, and the paper restricts itself toward understanding the secondary responses.

Ummm I'll repeat it again for you with a constant energy source striking the object you cannot increase the the temperature of the object and simultaneously increase the energy reflection.

What the paper says is and they describe it clearly is you should see a temporary drop in outgoing radiation as the system absorbs heat due to increasing green house gasses. Eventually the system must balance so a corresponding increase in outgoing radiation will occur.

The problem you have though is it's not showing up as CO2 increases according to the empirical data. (see fig 2 of the report, ERBE is the empirical graph, the others are the various "Climate Model" generated graphs of what they expected to be emitted)In other words your so called experts expected feedback and it doesn't show.

So you argument of massive heating due to CO2 of the earth needs resuscitation. (For you to be right CO2 has to generate heat and we both know that can not be)

[louiville35]

by ubrew12 November 3, 2009 12:38 PM EST
In its definitive 2007 synthesis report of the scientific literature, IPCC concluded: "In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1% gain and 5.5% decrease of global GDP. This corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points."

So global GDP drops by under 0.12% per year, about one tenth of a penny on the dollar, even in the 445 ppm CO2-eq case. And that has a very good chance of averting the incalculable cost of catastrophic global warming impacts to the next 50 generations, which means the cost of action is far, far less than the cost of inaction.

The IPCC's conclusion, and every single word in the report, was signed off on by 130 nations including China and the Bush Administration. Nor is this an especially controversial conclusion.

So, I think, louiville35, that you are the one being alarmist.
======================================================================
Your first mistake is in quoting the IPCC, we have empirical data to use from those who signed and tried to follow the Kyoto treaty and the data doesn't fit the IPCC.

[louiville35]

by ubrew12 November 3, 2009 12:34 PM EST
There was a PEW poll last July in which they polled American Scientists (not just geo-scientists, but general scientists, so most of these would not have funding dependent on their answers): 84% of them believed global warming was real and human caused. But only 49% of the general American public agreed with them.
===============================================================================

Yes I addressed that poll, I suggest you go to their site and see how the poll was conducted. More important is how they conduct polls of scientists.

The other poll she mentions they contacted 10,000+ scientist but only about a third responded. So the question is how many of the other 2/3 didn't respond out of fear of cut funding, activist death threats, intimidation from politicians/fellows.....................

I've gotten several death threats, numerous threats of violence, then of course thousands of alleged liberals calling names.......... over the last four years on this issue and I'm just one little guy on a blog that no one but us read. Which is what I try to remind them of as they foam at the mouth.

[ubrew12]

Personally, I think it'd be a completely appropriate commentary on the modern GOP, that they chose to recuse themselves from discussing the solutions to one of the most difficult problems to face humanity in recent history. Having opted out, they will feel pressure to continue to opt out, even as the evidence mounts and the consequences to their own constituents become plainer and harsher. There's nothing the GOP values more than consistency, and their consistency on this matter can be counted on to keep people voting DNC for years to come.

[louiville35]

Save the breath they are only going to invest $1 billion dollars/year of the $200 billion/year collected (if they pass the current house bill) for alternative energy.

Like electric cars, wind power, solar, battery technology........................

So not much money and a lot of hands out or is that hand kissing bowing for crumbs.
Really just politician photo op money not real solutions to get us off oil.

The big question we should be asking is where will the other $199 Billion/year go???

[ubrew12]

I don't want cap and trade. I prefer a straight carbon tax, with rebates (mostly to the poor) to make it revenue neutral. Cap and trade creates a market for carbon trading, and derivatives trading has shown, recently, how easily such markets can be gamed.

[louiville35]

by doctor_know November 3, 2009 11:35 AM EST
I'm a scientist and I will be happy to answer any of your questions about climate change. Scientists almost unanimously agree that global warming is a real problem worthy of action. I am one of them.
==============================================================================

Good then explain to me why this paper is a lie. (A study that shows empirically that long wave radiation from the earth has increased as CO2 levels went up but all computer models claim the opposite should happen.)

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf

I'll wait cuz this should be good.

[ubrew12]

Your paper is referring to radiative feedbacks. As CO2 climbs the primary effect is a warming of the atmosphere (the paper says so explicitly). With a warmer atmosphere, more radiation will be emitted. But there's also more H2O and this can have both positive and negative feedback effects. The paper is trying to distinguish, based on the time of response, whether negative or positive feedback mechanisms predominate in the tropic atmosphere.

However, feedbacks are secondary responses to a primary impulse. The primary impulse is that rising CO2 causes the tropic atmosphere to go up in temperature. So nothing in your paper refutes the primary conclusion of global warming. Instead, it tries to determine the secondary feedback mechanisms that predominate after the primary mechanism, which can determine the 'extent of the damage' caused by the primary mechanism. It suggests these feedbacks are primarily negative, which is good, while the 11 climatological models suggested they were primarily positive.

Sounds like good research, but nothing that refutes the primary conclusion of GW, which is that it is real, human caused, and potentially serious.

[j_mcdonald-2009]

I'm not a climate scientist, and only had about 15 minutes to read it, but I've found two major problems:

(1) Lindzen implies that raising sea surface temperatures would reduce long-wave radiation, implying some kind of infinite positive feedback mechanism -- completely bizarre and physically unrealistic.

(2) He adds a fudge-factor of 4 W/m^2/K in order to get his results:
?Also DSWR/DSST needs to be balanced with DOLR/DSST.
From the consideration, FLW = -DOLR/DSST + 4 and FSW = ? DSWR/DSST ? 4.?
Without that somewhat obscurely hidden and completely arbitrary tweak, his conclusions fall apart.

But, as I said, I'm not a climatologist, so maybe someone who is can correct me here...

[louiville35]

y sandy19731 November 3, 2009 10:20 AM EST
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

Here's your list.
The survey of scientists was done in January of 2009.
Eight out of Ten agree that global warming is a Very Serious Problem
==========================================================================

That comes from a PEW poll and I looked into that months ago. The problem is in how they poll "Specific Groups" which they point out on their web site. In other words they went to people who will benefit by more research dollars and polled them. It's like going to a nudist camp and polling them on public nudity. Or like a real poll taken by a woman's group who went to a woman's shelter to poll them on abuse. It came to light when a real journalist called them out when they reported that 90+% of women are abused.

BTW You have posted no names just second hand information (a poll is second hand information), you will have to try harder. Second hand information is not evidence.

[doctor_know]

I am a scientist and I know hundreds of other scientists spanning many fields. I don't know of a single scientist who does not think man-made global warming is a problem worthy of action.

Why don't you give us some names and facts to back up your claims?

[louiville35]

by doctor_know November 3, 2009 11:31 AM EST
I am a scientist and I know hundreds of other scientists spanning many fields. I don't know of a single scientist who does not think man-made global warming is a problem worthy of action.

Why don't you give us some names and facts to back up your claims?
============================================================================
I have been working in environmental engineering for most of the last 25 years and we laugh at comments like yours. I would say it's only about 25% true believers most, like me, haven't seen the definitive proof because if you have read the so called proof it (AGW) only exists in computer models not in the empirical data.

Yep here's 160 of them:
"The APS is at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a petition from its membership to do so. That petition was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the Society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies. Indeed a score of the signers are Members and Fellows of the AAAS, none of whom were consulted before the AAAS letter to you."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/02/160-physicists-send-letter-to-senate-regarding-aps-climate-position/

[ubrew12]

There was a PEW poll last July in which they polled American Scientists (not just geo-scientists, but general scientists, so most of these would not have funding dependent on their answers): 84% of them believed global warming was real and human caused. But only 49% of the general American public agreed with them.

[louiville35]

Hmmm it's been reported in September that the house bill will tax Americans to the tune of $200 billion dollars a year, the house bill will reinvest only $1 billion/year in development of renewable energy, Obama promised $12.5-15 Billion dollars.

Wonder where the $199 billion/year will be spent? So do I let's ask, OK?

Kind of tells you what Democrats think of the reality of GW.

[ubrew12]

In its definitive 2007 synthesis report of the scientific literature, IPCC concluded: "In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1% gain and 5.5% decrease of global GDP. This corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points."

So global GDP drops by under 0.12% per year, about one tenth of a penny on the dollar, even in the 445 ppm CO2-eq case. And that has a very good chance of averting the incalculable cost of catastrophic global warming impacts to the next 50 generations, which means the cost of action is far, far less than the cost of inaction.

The IPCC's conclusion, and every single word in the report, was signed off on by 130 nations including China and the Bush Administration. Nor is this an especially controversial conclusion.

So, I think, louiville35, that you are the one being alarmist.

[smoknmirrors]

Isn't it pretty obvious that there are serious differences of opinion on this question of human activity's contributing to climate change? Shouldn't those differences be a matter of deliberation? Isn't our Congress the primary place for deliberation of matters affecting the lives of American citizens? On what basis does a political party deny the American people the right to make a reasoned choice through exposure to all sides of a question? If a political party can scream out "you lie" to the President of the United States, why is that party afraid to make its case to the American people?

[louiville35]

You mean ALL those representatives who saw the train wreck coming last year but did nothing because no one held their feet to the fire?

So we just leave them to the "Special Interests" who meet with them everyday, special intersts who don't have our intersts, brilliant!!!

[bantamei]

if you deny that global warming is a live or die problem, you are either very naive, stupid, both or a RepubLIEcan. RepubLIEcans can't admit that global warming is the problem it is because that means they would have to tell their big business buddies to clean up their act. RepubLIEcans can't do that. Like they are when they put the welfare of the RepubLIEcan party before that of the country, RepubLIEcans are putting the interests of big business before that of the country. They would rather see you wear a gas mask than tell their cropnies in big business to clean up their act.

[rockcutr]

Hasn't any polytick noticed, there is no real power in their work. Just who gets credit for taking the most from the citizens and calling it public service.
Our nations problems could be better served by ceasing and desisting the world wide terrorism practiced by the military. Bring them home to actually protect our boarders instead of digin in to the drug "poppy" trade in Afgan mtns. Truth is that these actions shall never reap a peace. For the people who fight just don't want peace. They want to win take it all, then look for more stuff to get into. Like a pack of dogs on the loose with a really huge wallet. Saving us from ourselves isn't really the adgenda. It is a shell game.
There are no winners in a game with no soul.

[U_S_Drug_Addict]

bring it to a vote. its not like they can stop it...
run em over.

[BeckieBest]

The overwhelming consensus amoung the worlds climate scientists is that global warming is real, happening now, and the consequences will be catastrophic.

The overwhelming consensus amoung right wing nuts is whatever Rush Limbough and Fox News tell them.

[louiville35]

by BeckieBest November 3, 2009 9:31 AM EST
The overwhelming consensus amoung the worlds climate scientists is that global warming is real, happening now, and the consequences will be catastrophic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Name them scientists!

I've asked that question many times but never a real answer. The anti AGW have a list of thousands of opponents of AGW but it's not found of those who believe in AGW.

And no Keith Olberman et.al. doesn't count.

[sandy19731]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

Here's your list.
The survey of scientists was done in January of 2009.
Eight out of Ten agree that global warming is a Very Serious Problem

[louiville35]

by BeckieBest November 3, 2009 9:31 AM EST
The overwhelming consensus amoung the worlds climate scientists is that global warming is real, happening now, and the consequences will be catastrophic.

====================================================================

Hello BeckieBest are you there? tap, tap. The clocks running tic tok, tic tok

I guess you have no one because you get your information from your handlers who get theirs from their handlers who................don't know ether.

[louiville35]

by doc_holliday76 November 3, 2009 9:06 AM EST
The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney
A stinging indictment of how the Republican Party has not only ignored science, but has used bad science to justify its political agenda.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see your still promoting that junk science site set up by those who will profit from our suffering. Bravo

So how much money do you make every time you post the partisan hack web site?

[BeckieBest]

loserville

I know this will come as a shock to you but Rush Limbough is not a climatologist.

[louiville35]

y BeckieBest November 3, 2009 9:21 AM EST
loserville

I know this will come as a shock to you but Rush Limbough is not a climatologist.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Ahh name calling the first sign of desperation.

BTW thousands of REAL scientist say this is hog wash.

None of YOUR scientist (cowards) will even debate the subject, kind of says it all. LOL

Your "political scientists" vs real scientists kind of scary eh?

[doctor_know]

I'm a scientist and I will be happy to answer any of your questions about climate change. Scientists almost unanimously agree that global warming is a real problem worthy of action. I am one of them.