« Northern Europe shows U.S. how to prosper: raise taxes | Main | Visualize a Cafe Yumm in Salem, Oregon »

November 28, 2011


The US stands alone?

Try Australia, Norway, Canada, and Czech Republic as well. And those are just the countries pointed out in the comments section of the Climate Progress link cited, so I didn't have to look very far.

DJ, you are a good example of climate change deniers turning a blind eye to reality. Do you know how to use Google? Really, give it a try, rather than believing everything you read in comments left on a blog post.

I didn't believe your comment above, so I fired up Google to prove you are wrong. It was easy.

Australia has passed a carbon tax. The federal government and all state governments have agreed that climate change is being caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada -- the government recognizes climate change as a real problem and is fighting to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

Norway, ditto.

Czech Republic -- agrees that climate change is real and humans are responsible for global warming.

Facts are inconvenient truths, DJ. But if you start to embrace them, you might find that reality is a better place to live than wishful thinking.

I'm being blunt because it's time for us reality-affirmers to stand up more firmly for truth, especially scientific truth. The fate of our planet depends on it. You're free to believe whatever personal fantasies you want, but I will point out untrue comments whenever they're left on this blog.

Brian, there you go again, changing the debate after I respond.

Your original post contends that nowhere else in the world is climate science political debated. That is just simply false.

What's funnier, it was progressive warmistas like yourself who - with much disdain - provided the Climate Progress comments that I made reference to. And, yes, they provided links if you'd like to review them.

So, no, I'm not the one debunking your claim - your fellow progressives are.

DJ, did you even read my post? I wasn't talking about debating climate change science. I was talking about government policy acknowledging the need to reduce greenhouse gas pollution to prevent a dangerously warming world.

Sure, science deniers debate their crazy ideas in other countries. But these other countries have an official governmental policy that recognizes the reality of climate science. Most of these are parliamentary democracies, so there is a virtually automatic connection between legislative and executive branch policies.

In the United States however, the executive branch and Obama recognize the need to deal with global warming, while Republican anti-science types prevent legislative action. So what I said is correct, and what you said is wrong. Pretty darn simple, just like the consensus on climate science.

Brian, you're either mistaken or misinformed that Republicans have blocked legislative action on greenhouse gases.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey) was passed by the House in June 2009 with bipartisan support (and bipartisan opposition). The Democratic controlled Senate then had nearly a year and a half to do the same, but instead did nothing and let it die without a vote.

Democrats, not Republicans, are the reason the US currently has no carbon tax.


DJ, you should learn the whole story. Why didn't the bill pass the Senate? A lengthy analysis in the New Yorker explained why. Yes, the Obama administration didn't push hard enough for the climate change bill, being focused on health care.

But the biggest reason was Republican opposition, even among Senators like McCain who previously had supported legislation to deal with global warming. Here's the truth:

Lizza reported that:

"The Republican Party had grown increasingly hostile to the science of global warming and to cap-and-trade, associating the latter with a tax on energy and more government regulation. Sponsoring the bill wasn’t going to help McCain defeat an opponent to his right.

By not automatically resisting everything connected to Obama, these senators risked angering Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader and architect of the strategy to oppose every part of Obama’s agenda, and the Tea Party movement, which seemed to be gaining power every day."

Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) (before he dropped out), the champions of climate legislation, could never break this wall of opposition or neutrality even among Republican senators who had previously sponsored or voted for global warming legislation.

This includes Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who sponsored multiple global warming pollution reduction bills and advocated significant reductions during his 2008 presidential campaign. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) also co-sponsored global warming bills in previous Congresses. Nearly four years ago Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) said: "It seems to me just prudent that we recognize we have climate increase and temperature change. We have CO2 loading and we need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere."

Yet none of these senators publicly supported action or engaged in serious negotiations with key climate legislation crafters Sens. Kerry, Lieberman, or Graham in 2010.
So my conclusion is correct: Republicans were responsible for blocking the climate change legislation.

The Waxman-Markey bill has failed because the goals defined therein are unrealistic. There is no possible way that electric utility companies can produce 20 percent of their output from renewable energy sources - ever, much less within a legally mandated time frame. Right there - the defined goals for percentage reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are obliterated. Which makes the exercise pointless.

Life itself is a continuous and futile attempt to circumvent thermodynamic reality - equilibrium is not sustainable indefinitely. That is not philosophy - it is the cold, hard truth. Hard-core futurists like Ray Kurzweil are (correctly) convinced that our biology is the major impediment to long-term survival. Not of the species, but of Life itself.

Humans will not give up their creature comforts unless they are forced to. This gamer was over before it began.

Willie R, you're correct, the Waxman-Markey bill was indeed pointless (like Kyoto) when it comes to influencing emissions and climate. The real goal was to influence the flow of money from the productive to the unproductive.

Now here’s a good example of government denying climate science reality, in this case Australia.

Headline: Climate Change Science Being Stifled by NSW Labor Bureaucrats

In a nutshell, senior bureaucrats have refused to publish several peer reviewed tidal studies that show sea level rise constant at 1mm per year and rising 100mm by the end of the century. Why refuse to publish? Because the current government benchmark driving Australian climate change policy is that sea levels are expected to rise by 900mm by the end of the century and the rate of rise is accelerating.


DJ, regardless of what articles you cherry pick from the vastness of the Internet, the fact remains that the Earth is warming rapidly, and the oceans are rising.

Arctic sea ice is melting at a rate not seen in the last 1,450 years.

And equally scary, melting of Arctic permafrost could cause 2.5 times as much warming as deforestation.

Regarding the supposed suppression of studies in Australia, this claim came from a disgruntled guy who worked on the studies. Maybe they were crappy, and not worthy of publication. As a commenter on the news story said, if the guy's research is so great, why doesn't he publish his findings in a journal himself?

Brian, did you even read your own post? To paraphrase you, ‘You weren’t talking about debating climate change science. You were talking about government policy acknowledging the need to reduce greenhouse gas pollution to prevent a dangerously warming world.’

Doug Lord is one of YOUR scientists – he’s a climate change true believer who helped put in place the very type of government policy you’re talking about. Why are you attacking him?

A few Inconvenient Truths about Doug Lord:
1. Manager of Climate Change and Water for NWS Government, Australia (http://au.linkedin.com/pub/douglas-lord/29/721/1b3).
2. Has been specializing in coastal engineering since 1971.
3. During his gov’t career, he promoted need for government funding to manage coastal impacts due to sea level rise (his 2007 presentation: http://www.planning.org.au/documents/item/157).
4. Started his own engineering consulting firm in 2010. The Australian NWS then contracted with him to retain his expertise so he could continue his work with the other study co-authors still employed at NWS.
5. The studies in question were thorough, highly ranked and peer reviewed. One study was liked enough to be accepted by the organizers of the 2011 Coasts and Ports Conference, only to later be rejected without explanation by non-scientist gov’t bureaucrats.

And no, I don’t need to cherry pick. Stuff like this pops up virtually every day… here’s another fresh example of gov’t bureaucrat denial of climate science from Germany:


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Strange Up Salem

Welcome to HinesSight

  • Salem Political Snark
    My local political rants are now made on this badass blog. Check it out. Dirty politics, outrageous actions, sleaze, backroom deals — we’re on it. 

  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • Church of the Churchless
    Visit my other weblog, Church of the Churchless, where the gospel of spiritual independence is preached.

  • Welcome to HinesSight. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.