Update on Federal Climate Legislation.

Senator Lindsey Graham was quoted this week saying that a new climate and energy proposal will be released "hopefully in the next couple weeks." The new plan will not install a comprehensive cap and trade program over all industries. Instead the legislation will take steps to incorporate different industries over a longer period of time. Power plants would be the first industry to face a cap on emissions. The stall plan is the work of oil industries who believe that the House bill went to far in limiting their carbon emissions. The move is probably good politics considering these are turbulent times and support for comprehensive legislation will be needed from all sides. The other important note to make is that regulation on utility emissions would start on day one. Considering EPA estimates that power plants are responsible for over 70% of all carbon emissions this is a smart move.

Of course I can imagine 5 years down the road the oil industry will be pushing to have their cap and trade compliance further delayed. It would be nice to have it all set in one swoop, of course this legislation probably all hinges on the outcome of healthcare. ( I can't believe we're still talking about it)

If you all are interested in keeping up with environmental policy I highly recommend Greenwire.

Comments

that would be just like Congress

That would be just like Congress, to pass massively intrusive and expensive legislation to fix a problem which the best evidence now indicates is not really a problem after all.

The IPCC climate models have been falsified, the leading warmist researchers have been exposed committing scientific malpractice and outright fraud, the IPCC's reputation is in such tatters that its reports have lost all credibility, and the best indications are that the earth is now cooling, rather than warming. See:
ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html

Note that even Phil Jones has admitted that the evidence for global warming since 1995 is not "quite" statistically significant -- and if he'd said "since 1998" he could have left off the word "quite," since all of the measured warming since 1995 came between 1995 and 1998, and since 2006 there has been indisputable cooling.




If y'all want to keep up on climate-related issues without an ideological filter or slant, I recommend DailyClimate.org. It is a news-aggregator for climate-related articles from all sides of the issue.

Or, if you want to read what the smartest people writing about this issue have to say, the best sites are:

I'm definitely not one of the smartest people writing on this issue, but my own very modest contribution to climate science can be found here:
http://www.burtonsys.com/global_msl_trend_analysis.html

BTW, unlike GreenWire, none of the above sources requires a paid subscription.

Impressive post, Dave

You are smarter than the average bear, Dave. That took you a while to compile all of that and I give ya kudos for it. However (and you knew a "however" was coming), climate change/global warming to most "people on the left" (as you call us) includes many things environmentally. We look at sites like this that have articles in National Geographic, for example. We try to look into what the future offers us if we do not control CO2 levels and work to reduce emmissions not only associated with CO2.

We see the ice caps melting and eroding. We see the huge increase in diseases like asthma and COPD and lung cancers associated with our deteriorating air quality. We see reductions in oxygen-producing elements on good old Mother Earth.

Sure, you can argue with a litany of sites/links and we dreaded "environmentalists" can cross-argue with our own litany of sites/links. Yours, to you, are valid and unbiased and ours are all one-sided and skewed. But, the fact remains, our world is changing and has changed and much of it has come from changes that are manmade.

We can get into a back-and-forth discussion here on this that would last forever because even in the scientific community, these discussions/arguments remain ongoing. You kind of remind me of my first wife in that she also was one that didn't know when to STFU and absolutely HAD to get the last word in.

So, go for it, Dave. You're up.

You're a better man than I am, Foxy

Truth is, it's possible to find scientists to support any position about anything. Just look at this impressive list of scientists who reject evolution! I've sadly come to the conclusion that Dave is either (1) a pathological liar, (2) off his meds, or (3) a true believer who can't separate fact from fantasy. I suspect the latter, but the cause doesn't really matter for our purposes.

Hey-hey, boo-boo!

Foxtrot wrote:

You are smarter than the average bear, Dave.

The AGW alarmists want to steal your pic-a-nic basket, and eat your lunch, Foxtrot.

If they have their way, the world's forests and jungles will be planted in monoculture corn fields and palm plantations to make ethanol and bio-diesel, and the world's poorest people will starve because we westerners are burning their food.

That took you a while to compile all of that and I give ya kudos for it. However

I didn't just compile it, Foxtrot. I studied it. There's a big difference.

For instance, did you hear James Hansen tell Letterman that the earth's oceans rose 1.8 mm/year during the last century? If not, I'm sure you've heard someone else say that. It is a standard IPCC/warmist claim. (They also claim that the rate has more recently accelerated to 3.2 mm/year.)

What did you think when you heard it? You are a liberal, so my guess is that you accepted it without question. You might have once had a bumper sticker on your VW minibus which said, "Question Authority," but liberals don't actually do that.

I do. What I thought when I heard Hansen say that was, "How I can check that?"

Sea levels have been measured by tide stations for about 150 years (and the more recent satellite altimeter data is calibrated to tide stations), so the first thing I did was download and examine the GLOSS-LTT tide station mean sea level (MSL) trend data, from NOAA's web site.

(I also requested the raw data, but I've only manged to get part of it. Their web site is broken; I reported the problem a couple of months ago, and they thanked me, but still haven't fixed it.)

The first thing I noticed was that sea level trends vary greatly from one location to another, and many tide gauges have recorded falling, rather than rising, sea levels.

So I calculated the average. The average is about 0.6 mm/year.

That's just 1/3 of the IPCC's claimed rate.

I also calculated the median. It was only about 1.1 mm/year -- still less than 2/3 the IPCC's claimed rate.

So then I calculated a time-weighted average. In other words, suppose that, instead of weighting each tide station equally, we weight each tide station-year equally. That means we weight a tide station which was in operation for 100 years with twice the weight of a tide station that was in operation for just 50 years.

Calculated that way, the average was just 0.5 mm/year.

So I wrote it up, and conferred with some of the world's leading climate experts, on a forum where they "hang out." One of them asked a question. He said:

"Great list Dave - another way would be to weight the observations by the average distance from the other stations. Very interesting that NOAA doesn't show their calculations or the lat/long of the stations."

Rats. I knew he was right, but that was going to be a lot more work.

First I had to find the latitude/longitude data for all the GLOSS-LTT tide stations. Then I had to write a program to calculate the distances between tide stations, from their latitude & longitudes. Then I had to figure out how to weight the tide stations based on their distances from other tide stations, which required analyzing the correlations between sea level trends and geographical distances between tide stations.

That little project took up my spare time for weeks.

When I finished, the geographical distance-weighted average mean sea level trend turned out to be about the same as the median: 1.1 mm/year.

I also tested every other possible way of massaging the data that I could think of:

I combining the distance-weighted averaging with time-weighted averaging. The result was 1.1 mm/year.

I tried throwing out the outliers (the stations with the highest and lowest sea level trends): I recalculated all four types of averages for every possibility in which I discarded equal numbers of high & low sea level trends. Every result was between 0.4 mm/year and 1.2 mm/year, and the distance-weighted averages were all between about 0.9 mm/year and 1.2 mm/year.

I even tried a very broad range of different distance-weighting functions. The results varied from 0.6 mm/year to 1.2 mm/year, with all the reasonable and semi-reasonable functions resulting in about 1.1 mm/year.

(Note: I also put all the code and data on my web site, and posted links to in the aforementioned climate forum -- the sort of thing which the warmists defy FOI requests to avoid doing.)

The bottom line is that there simply is no avoiding the conclusion that the IPCC/warmist/Hansen claimed 1.8 mm/year rate exaggerates the true rate of sea level increase by at least 50%.

climate change/global warming to most "people on the left" (as you call us) includes many things environmentally. We look at sites like this that have articles in National Geographic, for example.

That 2007 article is way out of date, Foxtrot.

We try to look into what the future offers us if we do not control CO2 levels and work to reduce emmissions not only associated with CO2.

If the IPCC warmists have been misrepresenting the past, which is provable, why on earth would you trust what they say about the future, which is not?

The fact is that the earth hasn't showed any sign of warming for well over a decade, and in the last few years it has actually begun cooling -- even as CO2 levels steadily increase.

We see the ice caps melting and eroding.

When you worry about the wrong things, the best you can hope for is to fix the wrong problems. Here are some facts about ice.

The main threat that supposedly comes from the prospect of melting ice is sea level rise -- which is much lower than claimed by the warmists, and (despite their claims to the contrary) is not noticeably increasing (click on a few of the tide stations at noaa.gov and look at the graphs, if you don't believe me).

We see the huge increase in diseases like asthma and COPD and lung cancers associated with our deteriorating air quality.

Not in the USA, you don't. Air quality has improved dramatically in the United States. The only way your personal air quality has deteriorated is if you used to live in the countryside, and now you live in an urban area.

You and I are old enough to remember what it was like to drive toward Gary, Indiana in the 1960s, when you could see the yellowish haze and smell the smoke long before you got there. Thankfully, those days are long gone.

We see reductions in oxygen-producing elements on good old Mother Earth.

Sorry, I don't know what that means.

Sure, you can argue with a litany of sites/links and we dreaded "environmentalists" can cross-argue with our own litany of sites/links. Yours, to you, are valid and unbiased and ours are all one-sided and skewed. But, the fact remains, our world is changing and has changed and much of it has come from changes that are manmade.

"We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Well Done !

Man !!! That was well put together. Love to go through everything you've said on every issue I presented so that you could then go through everything I've said on every issue you presented....and on...and on...and on.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan left off the part about "selective facts". But, it doesn't surprise me if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Oh, and on that oxygen producers part you said you don't know what it means? Google is right up there on the top of your page. Type in "Where does the earth get its oxygen".

I think we're done here on this issue.

Done?

At least click on the "air quality" link.

Cute link...thanks Dave

'Preciate the link with video. Cute.

There is a reason our air quality is improving. THAT'S what me and people like me are trying to accomplish. We have much to do yet. I have a breathing disorder myself. I am not ignorant to the affects of air quality on humans. We have gotten better in that respect, thanks in large part to regulations and requirements set down by that horrible government entity the right seems to despise so much.

Again, thanks for the link. Now, can we move on to some other issue? This one has kind of played itself out, just like the "right-to-life" issue we delved into a week or so ago.

If you respond to this, I promise I'll hush and let yours be the last word :)

The LA Times sums it well

Nonsense. Although the IPCC errors have cast some light on the problems that arise when policymakers' demands for hard numbers conflict with the uncertainties of climate forecasting, they have done nothing to shake bedrock conclusions that the world is warming and that greenhouse gases generated by humans are the cause. Inhofe and others are waging a calculated misinformation campaign, seizing on every error or gap in scientific knowledge to cast doubt on research findings and portray scientists as villains. An identical strategy succeeded in delaying government action against tobacco companies for years despite overwhelming evidence of the hazards of cigarettes; this time, more than our lungs are at stake.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/02/opinion/la-ed-ipcc3-2010mar03

Gotta wonder what his purpose is

This Dave character is no dummy so I wonder why he comes to a site like BlueNC to espouse his obvious right wing spin and rhetoric on the issues of the day. Maybe he's just a guy that likes an argument and gets off when he thinks he has won one against "the enemy" or something. He spews out all the talking points and presents all the same arguments you can hear/read on Rush and Boortz and on Hannity and such on Fox News. And, yeah, I'm guilty of occassionally listening to those venues. If I don't, I can only count myself as someone that doesn't consider all sides. So, when I say he's spewing that kind of rhetoric, I do know what I'm talking about. I think he has shown that he meets #1, #2, AND #3 above :)

You have really mellowed, my man. You used to give posters like this all kinds of hell and now, you let them rant and rave and have their say.

Dave would be interesting, to me, if he had more to offer than just things he has been programmed to believe and didn't use all the same right wing jargon and phrases drilled into his head.

Interesting, though. At least he uses good grammar and spelling and formulates his sentences and paragraphs in an educated way. That is a plus on his side.

I have mellowed

My daddy used to say, "Never argue with idiots or assholes." So having discovered myself wandering occasionally into asshole territory, I've resolved to let the chips fall where they may. Dave's obnoxious, but he's not intolerably obnoxious, at least not this week.

I should add to my daddy's comment with one more category: "Never argue with idiots, assholes, or true believers."

Beauty is in the eye of the guy nearest the stage

"Never argue with idiots, assholes, or true believers."

I thought that was the mission statement of BlueNC. I have found that if I argue with someone long enough they become an idiot or asshole. At my age I have found it best to not be too much of a true believer in anything. The older I get the less truth I find. Of course I'm pretty much depressed with just about everything.....

Funny, R.H.

But I'm kinda liking that as a mission statement! The only risk is, it might get a bit quiet if we really took it to heart.

Great comment, especially those last two sentences.

Agreed !!

R.H., if you knew how old I really am, you'd know I agree with you 100%. I'm probably the "senior contributor" here.

We're kindred spirits on this one:

Of course I'm pretty much depressed with just about everything.....

depressed?

Foxtrot wrote:

We're kindred spirits on this one:

Of course I'm pretty much depressed with just about everything.....

I don't doubt it.

But I'm not.