How about a "balanced approach" to energy and climate policy?

[Denny Crane]

http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/15/the-climate-and-energy-state-of-the-unio

In his State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama warned that Americans must take steps now to cut "our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet." To justify these efforts, he appealed to the "overwhelming judgment of science," pointing chiefly to recent weather extremes in the United States as evidence for the urgency of action. Skeptics "can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence," Obama announced, but the president clearly does not. "Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods—all are now more frequent and more intense."

Is he right? Let's take a closer look at those trends the president cites. After that, we can assess the he wants to implement as a response.

(The article goes on to provide study after study showing Obama mis-stated numerous claims about the environment in his state of the union speech)

 

[jlprk]

That's a political site. Show such an article, overviewing a large range of articles, in a mainstream journal of science and you'll have some credibility.

 

[Denny Crane]

The links to peer reviewed studies are within the article. I saw a similar article on RCP a few days ago.

 

[jlprk]

Your article chooses articles selectively for its desired conclusion, or else science journals would stop having the opposite conclusion.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

This topic can be debated over and over with credible experts from each side of the table explaining why they are right.

As it stands, the current President chooses to side with global warming exists and needs to be dealt with. Obama doesn't have to worry about being re-elected and is coming out of the box swinging with gun control (forced on him), immigration and climate control.

I got a feeling he is just getting warmed up.

 

[jlprk]

There is no debate that the Northwest has less rain and fewer snows than 10 years ago. Denny, if you want a balanced debate, the topic should be over where to spend money on this issue and where not to. Not over whether climate warming exists.

After all these years, I have yet to see a list of proposed costs. Each side should have a version.

 

[Denny Crane]

There is no debate that the Northwest has less rain and fewer snows than 10 years ago. Denny, if you want a balanced debate, the topic should be over where to spend money on this issue and where not to. Not over whether climate warming exists.

After all these years, I have yet to see a list of proposed costs. Each side should have a version.

In the 1930s, there was even less rain and warmer temperatures, more drought, etc.

 

[jlprk]

It was hot and volcanic when the dinosaurs became extinct, so compared to them we got it good.

 

[Denny Crane]

It was hot and volcanic when the dinosaurs became extinct, so compared to them we got it good.

You talk about rain and snow over a 10 year period as if it's meaningful or has anything to do with anything beyond plain old weather patterns. As the 1930s example shows.

I think the point about "balanced approach" is to mock Obama who's talk is "balanced approach" but his actions are severe and punishing to the economy and country.

 

[jlprk]

After all these years, I have yet to see a list of proposed costs. Each side should have a version.

How can anyone disagree with this? If the cost exceeds the gain, I might even agree with the Republicans to just let it happen. But there is no fiscal policy debate.

 

[BrianFromWA]

jlprk, if you think that there's "disagreement" over modeling for the climate warming and effects (which is "based on science"), then how do you think that anyone's going to come close to agreeing on models based on economic projection? I mean, one side will say it will be revenue-neutral and one will say it will cost eleventy-nine trillion dollars.

You've seen the effects of 4+ years of "fiscal policy debate" in our legislative branch. We still haven't passed a budget in 4 years. When someone wants to cut 1% of the deficit, we're told we're headed for a "fiscal cliff" and people act accordingly. What's different with "climate change"? (Serious question: is it now back to "climate warming")?

 

[Denny Crane]

Brian makes a great point about fiscal cliff and people acting accordingly. Fear! Alarm! People act!

Now you know why the AGW scam artists are being called alarmists.

 

[jlprk]

jlprk, if you think that there's "disagreement" over modeling for the climate warming and effects (which is "based on science"), then how do you think that anyone's going to come close to agreeing on models based on economic projection? I mean, one side will say it will be revenue-neutral and one will say it will cost eleventy-nine trillion dollars.

You've seen the effects of 4+ years of "fiscal policy debate" in our legislative branch. We still haven't passed a budget in 4 years. When someone wants to cut 1% of the deficit, we're told we're headed for a "fiscal cliff" and people act accordingly. What's different with "climate change"? (Serious question: is it now back to "climate warming")?

Maybe it's politically impossible in the U.S., but in many countries the Kyoto treaty was popular back when Bush nixed it. There must have been cost numbers emanating from budget-makers in those countries. I'd be interested.

 

[MARIS61]

Global warming is in the hands of China and India and South America. Whatever the US does either way will have little impact on the big picture.

 

[Denny Crane]

Maybe it's politically impossible in the U.S., but in many countries the Kyoto treaty was popular back when Bush nixed it. There must have been cost numbers emanating from budget-makers in those countries. I'd be interested.

Bush didn't nix it. The senate has to ratify treaties and voted 100-0 against approving it. During Clinton's presidency.

The rewriting history thing is getting old.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Global warming is in the hands of China and India and South America. Whatever the US does either way will have little impact on the big picture.

Global warming is in the hands of Mother Nature, and whatever anybody on the planet does will have little impact on the big picture.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Bush didn't nix it. The senate has to ratify treaties and voted 100-0 against approving it. During Clinton's presidency.

The rewriting history thing is getting old.

Well, Clinton was the one who perfected the "tell another lie and they'll stop thinking about the last lie told" strategy...

 

[oldguy]

Bush didn't nix it. The senate has to ratify treaties and voted 100-0 against approving it. During Clinton's presidency.

The rewriting history thing is getting old.[/QUOTE]

QFT

Repped.

Go Blazers

 

[Masbee]

Maybe it's politically impossible in the U.S., but in many countries the Kyoto treaty was popular back when Bush nixed it. There must have been cost numbers emanating from budget-makers in those countries. I'd be interested.

Clueless.

Bush didn't "nix" it.

China did. Wake up.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Kyoto was a bigger joke than the United Nations.

 

[jlprk]

If Bush had backed Kyoto as Clinton did, it would have proceeded to become treaty. But then Bush nixed it.

 

[jlprk]

Bush didn't nix it. The senate has to ratify treaties and voted 100-0 against approving it. During Clinton's presidency.

The rewriting history thing is getting old.

Weird. You've been reading too many right-wing blogs. Of course Bush sank Kyoto. Everyone knows that. Go to this, download wp12.pdf, and read the short Chapter 3 for details of Bush's refusal to lead.

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/content/climate-regime-hague-marrakech-saving-or-sinking-kyoto-protocol

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama's leading on Kyoto? He nixed it!

What a joke of an argument you make.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html

 

[Masbee]

Weird. You've been reading too many right-wing blogs. Of course Bush sank Kyoto. Everyone knows that. Go to this, download wp12.pdf, and read the short Chapter 3 for details of Bush's refusal to lead.

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/content/climate-regime-hague-marrakech-saving-or-sinking-kyoto-protocol

Yes, he refused to "lead" the developed countries on an economic suicide pact that would have done little more to reduce their carbon emmissions that the worldwide financial crash and recession didn't accomplish, and left the BRIC countries free to do what they have - massively increase carbon emmissions.

 

[maxiep]

There is no debate that the Northwest has less rain and fewer snows than 10 years ago. Denny, if you want a balanced debate, the topic should be over where to spend money on this issue and where not to. Not over whether climate warming exists.

After all these years, I have yet to see a list of proposed costs. Each side should have a version.

The issue isn't whether or not we have climate changes, the issue is how much our actions impact it and to what end. We've had changes in climates up and down and up and down since we were able to record weather. However, how much of it was caused by us?

Also, some climate impact can be good. For example, wouldn't you be in favor of "global warming" if it helped to minimize an ice age?

 

[Denny Crane]

I've been living in or visiting San Diego for over 40 years. I've not seen the ocean one inch higher than it ever was.

And I've never ever said there is no global warming. Where did all the glaciers go? The ones that carved the great lakes?

Get back to me with an answer.

 

[jlprk]

The issue isn't whether or not we have climate changes, the issue is how much our actions impact it and to what end. We've had changes in climates up and down and up and down since we were able to record weather. However, how much of it was caused by us?

Also, some climate impact can be good. For example, wouldn't you be in favor of "global warming" if it helped to minimize an ice age?

I detect a widening crevasse between the icebergs. Denny says there is no climate change. Maxiep says there is climate change, but not caused by humans. We're advancing. Like, from an ice age caveman to a paleolithic farmer freezing in his moccasins. Good.

Now, we need a 3rd faction who says that there is climate change and it's caused by man, but that it's not cost-effective to reverse. Finally, a 4th echelon, those with the most bulbous foreheads, who say there is climate change, caused by technology, and the plusses exceed the minuses to mitigate the effects.

Then the last 2 groups would trot out competing budgets and have a rational debate.

 

[Denny Crane]

Tsk, tsk. Rewriting history again. Or just getting the facts outright wrong.

I detect a widening crevasse between the icebergs. Denny says there is no climate change. Maxiep says there is climate change, but not caused by humans. We're advancing. Like, from an ice age caveman to a paleolithic farmer freezing in his moccasins. Good.

Now, we need a 3rd faction who says that there is climate change and it's caused by man, but that it's not cost-effective to reverse. Finally, a 4th echelon, those with the most bulbous foreheads, who say there is climate change, caused by technology, and the plusses exceed the minuses to mitigate the effects.

Then the last 2 groups would trot out competing budgets and have a rational debate.

I've been living in or visiting San Diego for over 40 years. I've not seen the ocean one inch higher than it ever was.

And I've never ever said there is no global warming. Where did all the glaciers go? The ones that carved the great lakes?

Get back to me with an answer.

 

[jlprk]

Contradicting yourself again? Bad habit.

I've been living in or visiting San Diego for over 40 years. I've not seen the ocean one inch higher than it ever was.

And I've never ever said there is no global warming. Where did all the glaciers go? The ones that carved the great lakes?

Get back to me with an answer.

Also...did you use a ruler and snorkels to measure the ocean height?

 

[Denny Crane]

I think you have a reading comprehension issue. Where am I contradicting myself in those two quotes?

The UN scientists and Al Gore claim the warming is so serious that the oceans should be rising by feet. I mock you by pointing out that a casual observation that I don't see the ocean has risen at all.

There is a difference between global warming, which is natural (where are those glaciers?) and MAN MADE global warming (no convincing proof of that).