Legislating the climate - a concept so mindless and deluded that even the current Congress can grasp it. I look forward to their approval ratings dropping into the single digits.

I hate leap years and am lobbying my senator to get the orbit of the earth sped up to make the year exactly 365 days. Except for the small percentage of people born on Feb 29, this would be a big win to the rest of the population.

Please sign up at http://DeludedAvoidanceOfHavingToThinkAboutAnyRealIssues.org

Oh, here it comes from the Chicken Little crowd.

"WHA-WHA-WHAT?????? You mean a Republican senator is calling for greenhouse gas controls??? B-b-b-Brett, can it be???"

C'mon Mark, out with it. We are all expecting it.

As for John Warner (who was married to Elizabeth Taylor, I might add, which is enough to warrant having his head examined), again, we have another politician jumping on the "climate change" bandwagon and falling for the farce! Write your senators and congressman people. And put a stop this nonsense. Flood the Capitol Switch Boards if you have to. It worked before!

The Denier

I agree with Patrick completely. Leap years are dumb, lets speed up the orbit of the Earth! LOL... If we do that the force of gravity would be increased and thats dangerous.

Back on topic here, I think Senator John Warner is justing trying to score some points with the public or something. And limiting greenhouse gas emissions across every industrial sector will end up costing a lot of money and will be a reason for industry to move out of the country.

Perhaps he read the IPCC summary for policy makers on Global Warming and realized that it is the most up do date scientific study on the subject. It contains only data from respected peer reviewed journals and was developed by the joint effort of hundreds of scientist from across the world. It�s been developed and improved since 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. I

It�s perfectly fair to debate whether or not to do anything about global warming as it is a long term problem. However, the science is at an advanced enough stage that the governments and individuals should start to decide what to do about it as opposed to behaving as if it isn�t happening.

Very sad that so many people rely on 30 second clips from TV or off beat websites with a political or conspiracy theory tone for their information on the subject.

So, it bears repeating that jumping to conclusions about the science of global warming based on limited and simplistic data will only lead to a distorted and ignorant view of the subject.

Here�s a link to the summary for policy makers.
It's an easier read compared to the full report:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf

Oh lets hope not. This idiocy is beginning to lose steam and once sanity is restored where will all the chicken little Goreites be then?
How great to have "I was a sucker for a global warming fraud" on one's resume in ten years.

More and more Republicans, CEOs, and the like are coming around to the scientific consensus on global warming. Those on the right-wing corporate flank of the Republican party who were skeptical have changed their minds once their own studies, funded by a Republican administration, came to the same conclusion as everyone else: AGW is real.

Nancy Pelosi is taking a Greenland tour this week to see first hand the effects of global warming. She chose the warmest week of summer to maximize the devastation.

I hope she brought her swimsuit with her and is planning on taking a dip. It is -5 to 15F in the interior and up to 37F on the "tropical" coast today.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=72.58000183,-38.45000076
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=76.76999664,-18.67000008

Dear Mark you said
"More and more Republicans, CEOs, and the like are coming around to the scientific consensus on global warming. Those on the right-wing corporate flank of the Republican party who were skeptical have changed their minds once their own studies, funded by a Republican administration, came to the same conclusion as everyone else: AGW is real"

No it isn't proven at all that the warming is man made or even undesirable. Get some robes and join Al so you can sing in choir but this stuff is religion NOT SCIENCE and no amount of consensus thinking will make it so.

Please refer to the comments regarding CEOs. The Sen. is merely positioning himself as a "forward" thinker. By forward, I mean trying to stay at the front of an issue. Or, like many elected to our government, he is deluded to the idea of legislating everything. I sincerely doubt that he understands this issue any better than any other issue on the table. CEOs do the same thing to gain a profitable advantage.

Andrew:

I gotta ask you man, do you work for the UN or the IPCC? I mean every single thing posted refers back to this writing that really amounts to nothing more than an advertisement for an agenda based solely upon providing funds and grants for the scientific community. Sure, sure, it's peer-reviewed blah, blah, blah but that really doesn't matter. They all have the same goal, make a name for yourself and in the process make your mark to "save" humanity from itself. Oh, and by the way, ensure that someone will pay you to make these great recommendations.

I gotta love the comment about the policy maker part being an easier read. Sure it is, put a bunch of pictures and 2 syllable words in for the people that blow, I mean spend, the money of their constituents on this stuff. Sad thing is that these government geniuses delude themselves into thinking that they need this condensed version since their time is so much more valuable than any of the rest of us.

Andrew,
The IPCC SPM isn't exactly a call to arms. Thier confidence levels remain unexplained, and they've been caught at least in one instance of deleting portions of a peer reviewed temp reconstruction (Biffra). The IPCCs reliance on consensus belies the fact that they are in fact a scientific body, and not a political one.

As Patrick stated in the first post - our experts believe we can legislate climate variability. Think how absolutley ridiculous that notion is. We cannot even get Congress to act on a real, immediate, and measurable problem such as Medicare Reform; yet, this same body tells us they can help reduce future global warming by 0.5 to 0.75 deg C sometime in the next 75 years. No one can saw with 90% certainty what the weather will be in 75 hours or 75 days. Yet, we can determine future global temps 50-75 years out with absolute certainty by simply passing a bill.

If 2+2=4 became a political issue, you can be assured that within 20 years, an entire industry and organization of mathmaticians would be telling the world that 2+2 in fact equals 5. The MSM would feature documentaries and interviews in which experts would declare that time is running out, and Congress must pass a bill stating that the sum of 2 and 2 is 5. Mathmaticians and the average Joe who thought otherwise would be labled denialists, and Presidential candidates would be knocking eachother down in order to be the first politician to declare this new mathamtical reality.

This entire subject has gone from being a farce to being simply bizzare.

Mark,

Are you suggesting that Republican or conservative idiots have more clout than Democratic or liberal idiots? I agree that often their policies are somewhat more sound than Dims but an idiot is an idiot. You must sleep better at night knowing you're surrounded by idiots on the left and right. Congratulations.

BTW - Scientific consensus is an oxymoron. Science nor math needs consensus, they require proofs. "AGW is real". So is the AGW fairy, if you leave a lump of coal under your pillow you he'll leave you some food stamps.

Andrew,

If you actually read the IPCC's "Scientific Basis" and found it anything but useless, comical, and sad you are likely in for a less than fruitful life. Again I encourage you to check out some of the links at http:/www.biocab.org to see the math behind the science of GW. I know it's complicated, but whoever told you life was fair or easy was lying.

Regards,

Steve

Politics is about climate change and politicians (on both sides) understand this all too well. On any issue, the adroit politician will wet his/her index finger and see which way the political winds are shifting. Based on this precise measurement the skillful "climatologist" will modify his/her position to adapt to the new political climate (this also ties into Darwinism too I suppose.)

Do I believe in "climate change"? You bet. With all the hot air being generated about the non-issue of carbon dioxide emissions, the political climate is changing and certainly that must be contributing to some sort of weather change and may in fact be melting a glacier or two. Of course, since the House has voted that "global warming" is true, then it must be so.