Gingrich says climate bill will punish Americans
April 24, 2009 By DINA CAPPIELLO and H. JOSEF HEBERT , Associated Press Writer
FILE - In this May 14, 2008 file photo, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
(AP) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says a Democratic proposal to limit global warming pollution will "punish the American people" with higher energy costs and lost jobs. Gingrich appeared before a House subcommittee writing a broad energy and climate bill aimed at cutting greenhouse gases by 80 percent by mid-century.
Gingrich, a leading Republican voice who has indicated he may seek the presidency in 2012, criticized the Democrats' cap-and-trade climate proposal. He called it "an energy tax" that will increase Americans' cost of living and kill jobs.
Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California accused Gingrich of trying to scare people into opposing action on climate change. Waxman argued the bill is designed to contain energy cost increases.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says a Democratic proposal to limit global warming pollution will "punish the American people" with higher energy costs and lost jobs.
Gingrich appeared before a House subcommittee writing a broad energy and climate bill aimed at cutting greenhouse gases by 80 percent by mid-century.
Gingrich, a leading Republican voice who has indicated he may seek the presidency in 2012, criticized the Democrats' cap-and-trade climate proposal. He called it "an energy tax" that will increase Americans' cost of living and kill jobs.
Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California accused Gingrich of trying to scare people into opposing action on climate change. Waxman argued the bill is designed to contain energy cost increases.
©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Apr 24, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
the loon who wants to prevent progress on saving
mankind and our planet.
With new energy technology American can prosper.
But in this case, he is right.
Angular momentum changes in the Sun, induced by gravitational interactions with the orbiting planets, produce the solar cycles that control our climate - not the gaseous CO2 emissions that growing plants convert into oxygen, O2, and hydrocarbons.
You can see the Landscheidt solar cycles and angular momentum changes here:
http://landscheid...m-graph/
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/
I see that you are a Professor of Nuclear Chemistry so i would expect that you would have a little more insight into something as simple as the carbon cycle. And i would also expect that you understand a little something about optics and the green house effect. Seriously, angular momentum? What does that even mean to most people in the world? you've just provided more unsubstantiated fodder to all the ignorant people in the world that don't believe in human related global warming. Even the EPA is beginning to recognized co2 as a green house gas. I don't mean to be too harsh i did read some of your opinions on angular momentum's affect on sun spots and climate but its an academic red herring, of course the greenhouse effect is affected by the sun intensity but it doesn't end there its way more complex.
Maybe provide some data or any proof whatsoever that your Landscheidt solar cycle is relevant at all to the subject of climate change.
Oh boy, you didn't just drink the kool-aid, you poured the sugar.
They never denied CO2 was a greenhouse gas.
Ok, this is enough foolishness. You want to say the motion, including distance and angle in relation to the sun has zero effect on the climate, which is completely driven by the sun, of the planet. Unbelievable. CO2 produced since the industrial revolution until right now totals less than 1% of the troposphere.
Yes, the climate is far more complex than the greenhouse effect or the carbon cycle.
Direct correlation to all known climate change events is quite sufficient for most scientists.
This is a subject I am not qualified to speak highly on, but I do think the governments of the world are playing a little too much in the "human caused all of global warming" concept. From my understanding, we know that global warming and coll down is a natural process that occurs over and over again, including for millions/billions of years before mankind was even a twinkle in a cell's eye. If that statement is in fact true, then I would tend to think we are in a normal period of warming, that yes, we may have contributed too (well, most certainly did), but we probably sped it up by a whole 50th of a percentile is my thought.
Ok theres my can of worms...shoot it down guys :D
Hasn't the last seven years been cooling?
Even if this scam stumbled upon a truth, the problem will fix itself naturally, via unmolested capitalism; Once oil becomes more costly to extract (& it will
Of course its going to be a political argument, because the proposed solution involves the form of government.
As I was trying to post above (edit problem), even if this scam stumbled upon a truth, the problem will fix itself naturally, via unmolested capitalism; Once oil becomes more costly to extract (& it will
The only fact we can trust is that the planet has been both warmer and colder, and that in historical times.
I remember the ice age scare. Nobody then was screaming for the kinds of government powers and international wealth transference that we're seeing with the current AGW scare.
That's when most of the commies were still in Russia...
It's not, here is a quote from Freeman Dyson (already mentioned above):
"The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger"
Angular momentum won't affect the prism at all, there is no rotational motion involved in the prism effect, besides angular momentum is "not velocity along an angle", that would be angular velocity.
Greymouser i too am old enough to remember the big ice age scare.... due to polution from what? BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS... I also remember Sting telling everyone in 1986 that the entire Amazon rain forest would be clear-cut by 1995 and that O2 levels would drop by 30% or some such bull. None of this gloom and doom ever comes about because it's all medieval level witches and spells hysteria that the gullible and stupid fall for. In my youth i was one of those stupid and gullible... Then i got older and looked around and didn't see all of the catastrophe happening and started analyzing issues with scientific, empirical methodologies and lo-and-behold i realized i had been snookered by people who's only agenda was more government control of their citizens, not saving the earth.
Look it makes good sense not to pollute and to try and live in synch with nature. In most western industrialized countries we have that LUXURY. I would like to see all of the AGW hyperventilators spend a month in Mumbai or New Delhi or the slums of Brazil or any of the other 3rd world tragedies that i have been to and realize that the last thing on the minds of the people living there is the climate. You don't give a rats ass about the climate if you have to burn tire shards to cook your rancid rice so you don't starve to death...
However i do have to admit that the climate screechers back in the 70's may have been right after all, looks like the last 10 years of global cooling are heading us into a new ice age...
with floods that destroyed it. The green people that warned everyone were derided and fired and shouted down and the high taxes thatare now necessray are the result of unheeded warnings and action that has come too late.
Global warming by humans did not cause the new orleans incident, the earth did. Blame it on who really deserves the blame, and that is mother nature.
New Orleans was a man made problem. Man made a city under sea level, in hurricane alley, on the flood plain of the Mississippi. That was the problem. Nature solved it.
That does not change the fact that you and I are in agreement on the fact, the problem is not global warming, its mans stupidity in keeping a city there, compounded by the failure to help our fellow humans when the time came for them to need help. We have the government to thank for both.
Secondly, there is a net decrease in global cyclone activity. Check NOAA's site for exact info on it. You're not seeing more hurricanes, you're detecting hurricanes that would have gone undetected prior. We have more accurate means by which to detect cyclonic activity, that doesn't mean there are more hurricanes, and the data speaks to that.
It is interesting that your quoting Dyson when he is opposed to AGW.
http://icecap.us/...n_dyson/
It depends on what you mean by "opposed to AGW", he does not deny that warming does happen (as many opponents) the quote is pretty clear on that, he is skeptical of our climate models and against overblowing the issue.
I completely agree with his position.
Then you and I finally agree on something.
scientists are human and make MANY, MANY mistakes.
The whole sweep of scientific history shows that we should believe NOTHING until it is proven over and over again by multiple indepenent observations and all other alternatives considered and ruled out.
Even in the relatively short history of "global warming" we've seen numerous examples of mistakes and misrepresentations of supposed "fact". I will not bother to recount them here.
Simple fact: the "information revolution" has made it possible for fools to invest BILLIONS in Ponzi schemes and claim "proven track records" justify their faith.
Consider the last DECADE! Has ANY of the so-called "experts" been correct with ANY of their predictions? WMDs in Iraq? Inability of the "surge" to work? Housing prices will always rise.... "they HAVE for 70 years... and now we have a population explosion!" ETC. ETC.
Get real. Get practical. Get humble. Get educated about human limitations and recognize that we'll make this world work ONLY by exploiting efficently what little we know "for sure". Wasting time on pipe dreams will kill us more surely that CO2.
No, its not Brandon, its' the political hacks like you that deny the greenhouse effect is real and a real threat to mankind. "mother nature" did not perform as the army corps of engineers predicted in the early nineties despite warnings from scientists that the greenhouse effect would make "once in a century" storms much more likely to occur than that figure. right wing fanatics like you that deny the obvious and who don't care if it is repeated on ever larger scales are a real threat to everybody. Don't tell us mother nature is melting the polar ice caps or causing a huge increase in the damage from forest fires near San Diego and Los angeles and other cities.
Bravo, you're the new AGW poster child.
velannaris-thanks for the defense brotha :)
By the way, for those who keep using faulty reasoning in attacking sceptics by claiming that they are denying the existence of the greenhouse effect, I believe in the greenhouse effect. Were it not for the so-called greenhouse effect this planet would be a frozen wasteland. The Greenhouse effect occurs on all planets with an atmosphere, more especially those containing H2O vapor.
Do I believe, on the other hand, in Anthropogenic Global Warming? Not yet, for I have seen zero unfalsifiable evidence for it and have yet to see anything that cannot be explained by other things that are happening at the same time.
Do I believe that there has been a warming trend around the globe? Certainly. Do I believe man is responsible for it? Nope. Not yet. See above as to why.