It is utter fantasy to legislate for 2030. Nobody three years from now, much less 23 years from now will care less about our legislative obsessions.

Ten years from now people will have a completely different set of concerns and problems (like $10/gallon gasoline) and this will all be a weird footnote in the history books.

The only other long-term goals I can remember were to beef up the schools after Sputnik and to get to the moon by 1970. But those were positive goals and at a time when the country was united. The Clean Air Act was enacted and enforced over a short time period, and as a result was successful.

Suppose that in 1984 (23 years ago) they had legislated that by 2007, disco was the mandatory dance step for all Americans?

The Congress is completely out touch with reality.

It is ashame that as a society we are attempting to reduce emissions of CO2 when there is no real consensus that CO2 is a major climate forcing factor in the scheme of global climate. However additional CO2 is aiding the growth of plants. Other factors such as the solar and orbital cycles indicate that it is much more likely that a new ice age is in the making. Oh well, future shortages of fossil fuels, specifically oil will force the CO2 reduction global warming religionists are calling for now.

This is a great topic, as I think we should be spending more time discussing solutions to this problem rather than arguing whether AGW is "real." The fact is that if, for example, we warmed another five degrees over the next fifty years, deniers will still talk about how: 1) the Earth was hotter right after the Big Bang occurred and 2) Warming is good. At some point, the rest of us with no political axe to grind move on to the next area of debate -- solutions.

Regarding this bill, it's not aggressive enough; however, in Washington you just have to compromise in the hopes of getting something passed. I think baby steps are better than no steps at all, and later on additional measures can be enacted. I also think it's important to demonstrate, yet again, that the economy will continue thriving even with these measures in place.

Why is Congress wasting their time on this bill? They are assuming that something that represents a small fraction of the overall atmospheric make-up is responsible for most of the climate change we are experiencing. That is, assuming that what we are experiencing is truly a climate change and not just simply the weather.

This issue has become so politicized that science is no longer part of the debate. Science needs to be at the center of the debate. Scientists need come up with the solutions to the problems (again, if one exists) and, if necessary, then ask Congress for help.

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA). Bi-partisan??? You must be joking! Being a resident of Pennsylvania, I hate to tell you, but Arlen Specter is no more a Republican than John Edwards. He is a phony balony Republican IN NAME ONLY (a.k.a. RINO). And to answer the question put forth, STOP WASTING TIME (and trying to control our lives) and concentrate on the REAL threats to this country and planet!!! Not these dreamed up hoaxes.

The Denier of your Environmental Loonacy

Congress shouldn't be wasting their time. There are great lyrics from a song from "Casting Crowns" about America:

"Save the trees and kill the children."

how about congress does something to get all our children vaccinated, or fed? In my government class last year, my teacher handed us an article that said 99% of our cattle are fully vaccinated, yet less then 2/3 of our children are. Congress needs to stop wasting time trying to reduce C02 emissions when human C02 contributes to only 0.12% of the green house gases, while the vast majority is water vapor.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

>> What do you think of this bill?

It's a complete violation of human rights. The basic pillars of the AGW speculative idea have not been established.

>> polluters use allowances for each ton of CO2 they pump into the air.

C02 is NOT a pollutant! It really shows bias to use the word "polluters" in place of "companies" or "human beings".

>> Companies are given 1/2 the allowances needed to operate

This is complete totalitarianism. Human beings who happen to have organized themselves into productive units called companies, have their inalienable right to liberty completely violated, then, are "given" something back by their overlords.

>> The bill appears to be a good compromise compared to other climate change bills that are pending in Congress

Like a good compromise between "blacks are human beings" and "blacks are animals" was "blacks are 3/5 of a human being".

>> and has even received slightly positive feedback from some utility companies

As though this matters? Utility companies are cost plus. What do they care what their costs are?

OK, this is an easy one.

The AGWer among us will say the bill is too little and way to late.

The skeptic will say that the bill is a waste of time.

The outright denier will say what bill? And who is bill?

The rest will probably say that if this is such an emergency, why wait 23 years to deal with 1/5 of the supposed problem? Why give the "evil" business half the needed credits? Who decides how many credits a company needs? And, most importantly, who gets the money generated and what is done with it? My thought is that this a tax by another name and will be spent on the sinkhole that is social causes instead of doing something to address the concern of the bill.

Besides, by 2030, we should be "cold" again, I suspect there will be a call to emit more CO2 to fix the rampant global cooling problem brought about by evil business and, of course, Bush's grandchildren. I can see it now, Chelsea Clinton standing on the capital building steps angrily pointing a finger at the camera while decrying that Bush, capitulating to business, allowed EXXON to green-up too quickly, thereby shocking the climate to go cold. Her plan, paint the polar caps black to bring more heat in just like the ideas of the 70's. Oh and to permit the hunting of those polar bears roaming our cities since they now have so much new territory.

Oh, and, can I get a read on what would happen to companies that are not "polluters". That word would seem to have a negative connotation. Why use it in the article. Makes one think that a person reading it is supposed to feel good about how the government cares and bad and about the company who would dare to harm the precious environment. Seems a bit biased to me. Is CO2 really a pollutant? Is All Headline News liberal, or conservative?

Brett,

Yes or no questions.

1. Do you know of any tests or experiments that link CO2 to GW? If not so you know of anyone who does?

2. Have you read the IPCC reports, especially the "Scientific Basis" portion?

3. Would there be Weather on Planet Earth without the Sun?

If you answered yes to any of these questions will you please share with us your thoughts?

Regards,

Steve

Would someone please define "scientist"? My son has a PhD. in particle physics, but admittedly knows nothing about global warming. I successfully completed studies in both Aristotlean and symbolic logic in college, but I know nothing about global warming. Does Dr. Hawkings have an opinion on global warming.

Al Gore, I am told, flunked out of bible college. Does that make him an expert on global warming?

To put it simply, whatever Congress says the bill will do, go with the opposite. That is what to expect.

Brett,
This is a terrible bill that does nothing for the environment. It makes CO2 a marketable commodity at the price of $12.00 per metric ton starting in 2012 and rising each year thereafter. Companies buying CO2 emmissions permits will pass on the higher costs to the consumers thus putting inflationary pressure on our economy and making U.S. produced goods less competitive in world markets. China, India and others will continue to grow their economies and pump CO2 into the atmosphere free of these ridiculous government imposed taxes.

And this is based on the improbable notion that human generated CO2 is causing the earth to warm to catatrophic proportions. The sponsoring politicians don't have a clue but enthusiastically endorse this money-grabbing scheme to bilk us out of our hard earned cash. It isn't labeled a tax increase but that is exactly what it is with no perceivable benefits to the environment or the economy.

Steven Milloy has a good analysis of this bill at JunkScience:
http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20070712.html

By 2030 will we be heralding the coming ICE age like in the 1970's. This bill is ludicrous. I didn't think we could mandate religion in this country but the global warmist sure are trying.

BTW, my background is Ph.D. in Mech Eng. I guess since I don't "believe" in global warming, I am no longer a "scientist." Inane.

Doug

Regarding this bill, it's not aggressive enough; however, in Washington you just have to compromise in the hopes of getting something passed. I think baby steps are better than no steps at all, and later on additional measures can be enacted.

REPLY: At it again, eh Marxo??? Big surprise. I find it fascinating that the people on this blog who claim to not be political about this (non) issue, sure seem to get political, don' you? Baby steps now and more laws, regulations and government in your life later (when you're not looking), until your life belongs to the Proletariat. Unbelieveable.

Forever the Denier

Utter nonsense. We have too many much more important and immediate concerns for Congress to be wasting its time with this rubbish. Another black eye for the Worst Congress Ever.

We have 30-50 years (max) of oil left.

Whether we burn it in 30 years or 60 years makes no difference to the AGW theory. The same amount of CO2 gets generated either way. Then the question becomes irrelevant. Reducing the rate of CO2 burning by 20% is a complete political ruse.

After fossil fuels are gone, there is no longer any way to imbalance CO2 in the atmosphere.

We should be concerned with real issues, like the fact that unless we come up with alternative transportation technologies, most of us will starve to death by the end of the century.

Seems the Congress is in utter denial about reality.

>> Would someone please define "scientist"?

Anyone, regardless of education, credentials, prestige or intelligence, who actually follows the "scientific method".

Isaac Newton had a law degree.

Arguments by Persona or Authority are invalid.

>> This is a great topic, as I think we should be spending more time discussing solutions to this problem rather than arguing whether AGW is "real."

The insanity of this statement is amazing. I think we should stop arguing about whether the moon is made of cheese, and simply eat it.

It's so obvious what your agenda is. No matter what the alleged problem, restricting freedom is the solution. Oh, our local landfill is full, implement state control of human beings. Oh, it's a hot summer, implement state control of human beings. Oh, the US is out performing the Euro economies, implement state control of human beings.

If you dare claim that this would not amount to a violation of liberty, why don't you prove it by allowing me to specify the maximum energy you can use per day.

I decree that Mark shall not use more than 100 MegaJoules today. The average person uses 287MJ. So, you can either turn off all power in your house, or not go to work. Don't forget to include the 14 MJ of food you eat today. That goes against your 100, so you have 86 MJ to use however you want.

Don't bother pointing out that your energy usage is tiny. The fact that the sun delivers to the US each day 3.01 Million Billion times more than you consume is of no consequence. I have decreed, based on my speculative idea (with no scientific evidence) that you are poisoning our fair kingdom.

Just a PR move and does nothing at a great cost.
The benefits of warming to the US outweighs the negatives anyway, even if it were true that man is causing warming.
Or are we cooling? If so wouldn't this be the worst possible approach?
It's a meager offering to the Church of Gore, waste of time.

>> We have 30-50 years (max) of oil left.

There is no support for this statement. It's been claimed over and over, based on the idea that oil is biotic. It's been proven wrong over and over again. Old dry wells are filling back in with oil. Of course, oil companies stand to gain from creating the perception that supplies will run low, since it increases prices.

>> Whether we burn it in 30 years or 60 years makes no difference to the AGW theory. The same amount of CO2 gets generated either way.

You're right wrt the AGW idea, and maybe you're just pointing out the internal inconsistency in the AGW theory, but if oil is abiotic and almost endless, and the AGW was correct, then they would be correct in restricting its usage. However, the AGW is not even close to correct.

>> Reducing the rate of CO2 burning by 20% is a complete political ruse.

True, it's just a means to implement state control of human beings.

>> After fossil fuels are gone.

They are not "fossil fuels". The argument that Oil is Abiotic is a far more compelling application of scientific first principles, and testing according to the scientific method. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiotic_oil, http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm.

The objections to the abiotic theory are really weak. The biotic oil theory holds that methane forms naturally, but anything more complicated than methane requires biological activity, while the abiotic theory holds that oil is produced by both non-organic and organic means.

People thought that oil was a fossil fuel because it contained organic debris, but if petroleum is abiotic and an excellent solvent of organic material, up-welling hydrocarbons will naturally incorporate the organic debris found in sedimentary rocks. This does not mean it is biotic. A principal argument against abiotic oil was that no oil has been found in the crystalline basement regions of the earth. Now, it has.

There are more than 400 wells and fields worldwide, both off-shore and on-shore that produce or have recently produced oil from igneous rocks.

The most important point is that the fossil fuel theory requires a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

>> there is no longer any way to imbalance CO2 in the atmosphere

Please note that all the C02 in the atmosphere is in transition. It's all headed into the oceans. C02 has an atmospheric residence time of 5.4 years. There are two carbon cycles, inorganic and organic. Human C02 output merely makes it appear like there is more animal life. This may be balanced by more plant life, or more likely simply increase the C02 flow by .2%.

>> unless we come up with alternative transportation technologies, most of us will starve to death by the end of the century.

You greatly diminish the human capacity to innovate and adapt. The hydrogen car may be available in 25 years. Besides, we can make oil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_oil

This is "feel good" legislation that, at first blush, appears to be less onerous than what we might otherwise eventually have shoved down our throats if the Marks of the world are able to scare enough voters. Such legislation, though, would represent the latest step down the slippery slope of trying to legislate morality, in this case environmental morality. But I would support it if the AGW crowd accepted it as a significant step and not a "baby step" to get their foot in the door.

The actual report (with the science and analysis) from Lockwood is now posted:

http://www.publishing.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Solar energy peaked in 1985, cosmic rays decreasing since '85...interesting how our temperature rise has accelerated even though the sun's energy has been decreasing.

Mark,

Interesting how Lake Superior still hasn't warmed up to the average surrounding air temperature even though the last ice age ended 20,000 years ago.
http://www.landbigfish.com/watertemps/superior2.cfm?ID=1

If you have a large thermal mass (like an ocean or large lake) it takes a very long time for the temperature to reach steady state. The oceans are still responding to the rapid rise in solar activity reported by the IPCC through 1985, and ongoing high levels we still see today.

Anyway, Lockwood is ignoring the opinion of his peers. I guess peer review is only important when it supports AGW?

According to NASA-

"Scientists Predict Big Solar Cycle
Dec. 21, 2006: Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.
Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm

"Astronomers have been counting sunspots since the days of Galileo, watching solar activity rise and fall every 11 years. Curiously, four of the five biggest cycles on record have come in the past 50 years. "Cycle 24 should fit right into that pattern," says Hathaway."
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm

Gunnar,

The best indication of oil supply and demand is rising prices. Rapidly increasing demand and diminishing supply. This will become increasingly severe over time.

If you really believe that oil wells are recharging at a rapid rate, I suggest buying up large tracts of depleted oil wells in West Texas. Nobody else wants them.

Hydrogen cars are wonderful, but unlike oil, hydrogen is not an energy source. And that wasn't my point anyway.