Quote of the week #5 – Waxman’s stunningly stupid statement

qotw_cropped

Image from WUWT reader “Boudu”

This QOTW is from Congressman Henry Waxman, who is pushing (or maybe bribing) the carbon cap and trade bill through congress. The statement made by Waxman can be corrected by a third grader; it is that bad.

From an interview on NPR as relayed by Tavis Smiley:

We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”

That’s probably the scariest statement on “science” ever uttered by a Congressman.

Let me go on record by saying Waxman is stunningly and stupidly misinformed and intellectually inadequate for the tasks at hand that bears his name: The Waxman-Markey bill

This is what Waxman works on in Congress:

Committee on Energy and Commerce (Chairman)

* Subcommittee on Health
* Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
* Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Write or call your US representatives now.

About these ads

191 thoughts on “Quote of the week #5 – Waxman’s stunningly stupid statement

  1. We elected these stunningly stupid politicians. We need to elect a few that are not so grossly ignorant. We have Waxman, Arnold, Pelosi and Obama to name but a few. We are now paying and will be paying for their actions as they drive the ship of state into a carbon abyss. I am sure that the tundra under the arctic ice cap will be studied with billions of our tax dollars.

  2. In the past, I used to think that Czech politicians – and not only politicians – were extraordinarily stupid. I no longer think so. The silliest recent example of ignorance we’ve seen was an interview with the #2 member of the Czech Green Party, Ms Kateřina Jacques, who was unable to clarify what biomass is and in what form it can be burned in environmentally friendly heating systems (gas? biowaste?).

    But this Waxman dude seems much worse.

  3. Waxman is smart enough to take our wealth and freedom. Bad science is just a handy tool of convenience.

  4. The Waxman-Malarkey bill
    sums it.

    from Webster.com:
    Main Entry:
    ma·lar·key
    Variant(s):
    also ma·lar·ky
    Function:
    noun
    Etymology:
    origin unknown
    Date:
    1929

    : insincere or foolish talk : bunkum

  5. We forget. Congresmen have lobbiests to tell them what to do. The rest of us depend on the newspaper.

  6. Words failed me when I first read this quote. They continue to fail me today. There never was any chance of anything I have read anywhere since last Sunday ever being in the same horse race as this for Quote of the Week.
    Andrew, if you are thinking of a Quote of the Year competition, please stop now; there is no point in continuing!!
    But, fellow-sufferers, really do be afraid. If this is what US politicians genuinely believe and they do not have enough of an open mind to consider they may have got the facts wrong, then we are indeed doomed.

  7. Congressmen, like reporters, are not picked for their ability to use logic. It is snowing again here in Montana today. Three days ago, I troweled concrete for a friend in a nasty snowstorm, complete with an icy North wind. Our Beartooth Mountains are still piling up more snow. Last week several elk herds came down to the lower country to escape the many feet of snow in the mountains. I have heard there is big snow in nearby Yellowstone Park-10 feet on the level in part of it. Al Gore is not revered much here.

  8. The concept of savvy politicians is all wrong. Does anyone remember “Gulliver’s Travels?” Especially the part where the foreign king could not hear, until one of his servants smacked him across the ear with a soft baseball bat? And the king could not speak unless a servant smacked him across the mouth? (again, using the padded bat).

    This is almost exactly what we have today, with elected officials hearing (and reading these days) only what their staffs have carefully filtered and allowed them to hear.

    Politicians speak in carefully chosen words (written by their staff) and (usually) only when their staff and advisors have chosen the time, place, and manner. Even a supposedly “spontaneous” Town-Hall type performance is just that, a well-rehearsed and practiced performance sometimes worthy of an Academy Award.

    It appears to me that Rep. Waxman deserves a Razzy, for bungling his lines so badly. Or a better staff, who can actually write.

    Who can forget Billy Boy Clinton and his cronies yukking it up at a funeral, until they realized a news camera was rolling. They instantly jumped back into character, with long faces and sad expressions. Method acting, apparently? Another Razzy?

  9. Stunning. What is the tundra gonna do? Fly off into space?

    He is a little confused.

    I gather that what he actually means is that tundra ground-ice will melt, releasing methane which will, in a manner of speaking, “fly off into space”.

  10. Antarctica will soon reach the tipping point and evaporate, leaving a tinder dry tundra. Now, I must ask the question: Who writes Waxman’s stuff?

    If we are to take his speech seriously, then:
    Have Dorothy fetch that pail of ice water, the fire must be put out.

  11. If you are the provider of money for a campaign….

    Do you really want a candidate that thinks (let alone studies) for themselves?

  12. Brings new definition to the label “Dumbocrat”.

    Waxman would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle.

  13. In related news,
    The Catlin Survey Group has just announced that as they get closer and closer to the North Pole, the tundra is shallower and shallower. “Sometimes, we barely get started drilling when we hit the tundra. I have my friends standing by with nets to capture any tundra that I inadvertantly release. It would be irresponsible to let the tundra fly free.”
    The Catlin Science Team is anxious to meet with Congressman Waxman to confirm his recent comments, and to apply for grants to further the avancement of Science.

  14. Tundra held down by an ice cap floating on water? The combination of ice and water must create a special gravitational field that is keeping the nearby land from flying into space.

  15. And people actually VOTE for these people? I think there should be an exam for politicians before they are allowed to stand for office. And another one for voters before they are allowed to vote.

  16. We can contemplate Waxman’s competency, but what does it say about the qualification of his “soul-mate” Markey?
    ————————————————————-
    A few words from Sud Africa.
    ——————————————————–
    Climate Change: A View from the Other Side of the Equator

    http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Alexander.pdf

    The Sun’s Role in Natural Climate Change

    ttp://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/

    Upcoming Solar Cycles

    http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/SolarCycle.html

  17. Waxman is getting lessons from Gore, facts have no place in this debate:

    Gore referencing Madoff and a massive fraud, the irony is so thick…

    Also, OT but here is another interesting editorial on solar activity from across the pond. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/felipe-fernandezarmesto-its-been-a-long-cold-lonely-winter-but-here-comes-the-sun-and-yes-its-all-right-1674263.html
    It is reasonably factual until the “denier bashing” kicked in, “Fanatics who wish to deny global warming are invoking the Sun to talk up the prospect of global cooling. Loony augurs see a new ice age coming, or threaten us with prophecies of apocalypse in 2012 – the Doomsday year selected by ancient Mayan soothsayers.”

    I don’t understand why the British press seem to have drunk so much of the AGW Kool-aid…

  18. Waxman would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle.

    Makes note to self for future use as witty comeback!

    A agree completely — Perhaps we need a Political Moron of the Month club award, to in a single place, immortalize the incompetent ravings of our politicians from all nations. I am sure it will make for amusing reading, and at the same time give reason for some sober thought about the block heads we vote into office.

    Would it be illegal to walk up to Waxman and give him a “V8 moment” over this? (slap his forehead out take from an American TV commercial for V8 Juice)


    Larry

  19. if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”

    OMG…..Not Tundra……Quick wake up Godzilla!

  20. Waxman wear a “Party Hat”, what else do we need to know?
    If you simply watched the videos and turned off the volume, the experience would not change.

  21. John Edmondson (11:14:39) :

    This man is a genius compared to our “primeminister” the one eyed scottish idiot.

    Gordon Brown is far from perfect, and his government has got it wrong on many key issues, but I don’t see what him having only one eye or being Scottish has got to do with his abiliity or intellegence (or lack of). I am surprised that this comment (which I am sure many will find offensive) passed through un-moderated.

  22. “Steven Goddard (11:18:24) : Way OT – the last “swine flu epidemic” occurred when Jimmy Carter was president.”

    Way OT too–and they wanted to give shots for it–why do they want to put needles in you? There must be some political reason.

    My one and ONLY OT here.

  23. The President has asked for input. Ok.
    Let’s put the Waxman stuff into context.
    Obama still holds to Iraq being a dumb idea.
    Fine.
    If he wants to avoid Economic-Scientific Iraqs, then he had better gather together the leading physicists of the world, and not leave driving of the Bus to the world’s foremost Science illiterates. Now, the latter is a really dumb idea.

  24. Stunningly stupid or not, just remember, Waxman has been waiting 30 years to destroy the energy business in this country. As long as John Dingell was chair of the Committee (or the Republicans were in the leadership), Waxman was kept in check. All I can say is “be afraid–be very afraid”.

  25. Ron de Haan (10:28:30) :

    “What Waxman should read in order to look less stupid:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/some-global-warming-qa-to-consider-in-light-of-the-epa-ruling/

    I read Dr. Spencer’s statements, and with all due respect to the good Doctor, unfortunately he is wrong on at least one point. Dr. Spencer stated: “Because the Clean Air Act is exempt from cost/benefit analysis, it does not matter if regulations end up causing ten times more harm than good. “

    This is just not true. The section of the Clean Air Act in question, Section 202(a), does require that EPA consider the costs of compliance. In fact, the word “cost” or “costs” is used 5 times in Section 202(a), and 15 times in the entire Section 202.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00007521—-000-.html

  26. I think the time has arrived to set general standards for politicians and make them preform a test before they officially can take up their job.

    It’s dangerous to have people like Waxman deal with policies that are so important for the USA and the world.

    Waxman by the way is not the only one.
    What to think of Nancy Pelosi stating that we can not afford anymore to burn fossil fuels. Instead we have to burn “Natural Gas”.
    Natural gas, as we all know is not a fossil fuel. Not?

  27. Clearly unqualified to hold his position. Waxman should be stripwaxed out of government after making such erm hairy statements.

  28. Oh dear Watts, I’ve long since ceased to be amazed by the ignorance and stupidity shown by politicians. No wonder they are enthralled by the “technological and scientific elite” – how could it be otherwise? They’re nmostly thick as pig-poo and those that aren’t can see the advantages of playing the public like this. Let’s face it, a lot of the public aren’t any smarter.

  29. Stunning – not for what he said but simply that this will have no impact on Waxman’s career. If he had said that Darwin Evolution is nonsense and the world is only 4000 years old it would be just the same – no effect.

    Nobody expects leadership to actually get anything right or even remotely accurate anymore – except, of course, on really important aspects. Like, for example, if he got caught in an extra-marital sex scandal then that would be really really BIG news and probably the end of this lawyers career.

  30. “Andrew P (11:44:53) :
    John Edmondson (11:14:39) :
    This man is a genius compared to our “primeminister” the one eyed scottish idiot.
    Gordon Brown is far from perfect, and his government has got it wrong on many key issues, but I don’t see what him having only one eye or being Scottish has got to do with his abiliity or intellegence (or lack of). I am surprised that this comment (which I am sure many will find offensive) passed through un-moderated.”

    Aren’t those words only descriptives? Do you think either of those descriptions are expletives? I don’t…

  31. I tried to watch the Gore ‘speech’ to the Congessional Committee, I really did. But only thirty seconds of Gore’s blether made me want to throw up. His sactimonius delivery, his absolute refusal to meet someone like Lord Monckton who would destroy each and every pompously made ‘point’ and his very tone of voice made my stomach churn.
    It must be patently obvious to anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever of his intricate ties to businesses involved in the ‘cap-and-trade’ revenue raising scam that he, Gore, is going to double or treble his already obscene fortune.
    Just look at what has happened in the last week here in the UK.
    Our country is on the verge of bankruptcy, the number of jobless people rises ominously quickly, deflation has begun. Our government’s solution? To spend half a million pounds on freaking windmills!
    Our energy prices are set to go through the roof, with the poorest sectors of our population being the hardest hit.
    People of the USA, look across the pond at what awaits you. Socialist inspired central control does NOT work, but that is what is being imposed on us all. And it is all in the baseless assertion that the destructive policies being enacted are to save the planet from mankind.
    Here in the UK a citizen’s voice is no longer heard, although his every e-mail, web-site visited and mobile phone call is now to be recorded.
    You in the USA are our only hope for some sort of sane reaction to halting this mad march to totalitarian control of everything that everyone does.
    Please help!!

  32. Roger Sowell–

    You are right on Section 202. But it only deals with vehicle emissions. That is thanks to John Dingell (of the auto manufacturing state of Michigan). Dr. Spencer is also correct that other parts of the Clean Air Act do not allow cost to be considered.

    I can’t cite the specific sections off the top of my head, but they have to do with major sources and non-attainment areas. Under those sections, the EPA has required maximum achievable control technology (MACT). Under other less stringent sections, EPA requires BACT (best available control technology), a designation which has a cost component.

  33. Un-ethical is the word, he is not stupid. The plan is to lead the stupid of which this country is full of now. Materialism led morons waiting in line for handouts.

  34. Just in the interest of fairness and perspective, we should remember there’s “stunning” stupidity” on more than one side of this issue, and, of course, on both sides of the aisle:

    (Rep John Shimkus R-IL)

  35. King Arthur: I am your king.

    Woman: Well I didn’t vote for you.

    King Arthur: You don’t vote for kings.

    Woman: Well how’d you become king then?

    King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.

    Dennis: Listen, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

    Dennis: Oh, but you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

  36. (of course, I don’t believe Shimkus is presenting a massive piece of legislation related to the issue…)

  37. Lubos Motl (10:31:14) :

    In the past, I used to think that Czech politicians – and not only politicians – were extraordinarily stupid. I no longer think so. The silliest recent example of ignorance we’ve seen was an interview with the #2 member of the Czech Green Party, Ms Kateřina Jacques, who was unable to clarify what biomass is and in what form it can be burned in environmentally friendly heating systems (gas? biowaste?).

    But this Waxman dude seems much worse.

    Sadly, Waxman is merely the tip of the iceberg.

  38. Mike Kelley (10:47:01) :

    …. Al Gore is not revered much here.

    Mike, Al Gore is not revered much here either (more considered as a bad joke), and this is his home town! (Nashville, TN).

  39. starzmom (12:18:26) :

    “Roger Sowell–

    You are right on Section 202. But it only deals with vehicle emissions. That is thanks to John Dingell (of the auto manufacturing state of Michigan). Dr. Spencer is also correct that other parts of the Clean Air Act do not allow cost to be considered.

    I can’t cite the specific sections off the top of my head, but they have to do with major sources and non-attainment areas. Under those sections, the EPA has required maximum achievable control technology (MACT). Under other less stringent sections, EPA requires BACT (best available control technology), a designation which has a cost component.”

    Thank you for that, starzmom. I believe you are referring to Section 172, for Non-Attainment Areas in general. That section does not require cost considerations. However, section 112 that deals with hazardous air pollutants from major sources, area sources, and stationary sources, also requires costs to be considered. It is interesting, because “prohibitions of emissions, where achievable” is in the same sentence with “taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction…”

    Clean Air Act is very complicated, as you probably know.

  40. I found these in “Schott’s Original Miscellany”. They are taken from “The Demon’s Dictionary” and thought them appropriate here. “Influence”-def.- in politics, a visionary “quo” given for a substantial “quid”. “Politics”_ def.- the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

  41. Green Energy solutions are surprisingly retrograde. Wind power, a key component of all green energy solutions, was the main energy source – sailing ships and windmills – prior to the invention of the steam engine. Battery operated electric cars – the supposed solution to the transportation fuel shortage, – was the dominant car technology up to 1913, when internal combustion engine driven cars took over because of their superior performance and cost. Electric propulsion is a partial solution at best. While it may be suitable for short range passenger cars, it is totally unsuitable for trucks and airplanes

  42. Andrew P (11:44:53) :

    John Edmondson (11:14:39) :

    This man is a genius compared to our “primeminister” the one eyed scottish idiot.

    Gordon Brown is far from perfect, and his government has got it wrong on many key issues, but I don’t see what him having only one eye or being Scottish has got to do with his abiliity or intellegence (or lack of). I am surprised that this comment (which I am sure many will find offensive) passed through un-moderated.

    The reference to “one-eyed Scottish idiot” is a quote from a remark made by Jeremy Clarkson describing the aforementioned prime minister. I believe it was on Australian
    TV. He late apologised for the one-eyed Scottish part.

  43. By my count, Waxman has 4 wrong out of a possible 3. OK, maybe 3-1/2 if you give him half credit for evaporating instead of melting.

    Another classic quote from Waxman in the same interview:

    “Waxman: Well, I think we’re going to be a lot more innovative when we put the profit motive – the market mechanisms in place that will give a very clear incentive. If we raise the price of energy, which will happen if we’re reducing the amount of carbon emissions, and industries have to figure out how to live in a carbon-constrained environment, they are going to have to figure it out because it’s in their profitable interest to figure it out.”

    In other words, “You guys go figure it out. But remember, you can’t use any fossil fuels and nuclear is not an option. You must use wind and solar since it’s so much more efficient. Yeah, that’s the ticket! Oh, and by the way, don’t forget to send us your taxes.”

  44. Why did Tavis Smiley embarrass Representative Waxman (D-of course) by posting this amazing display of Waxman’s ignorance? Is Smiley a mole at PBS working for the vast right-wing conspiracy?

  45. This reminds me that somebody (I think H L Mencken) when asked to explain what “tautology” means, said:

    “It is when you say the same thing twice but with different words, like ‘ignorant politician'”

  46. For evaporation to occur in that region temperatures would have to increase by 15-20C above present (April average). For any substantial or dangerous evaporation to occur the temperature needs to increase by 35C or more over present. Not going to happen unless a fireball the size of our planet passed very close.

  47. One thought, as Mr. Waxman is in a leadership position within his party he may possibly be one of the brighter ones ?

    I posted the following before in another thread so my apologies but on refelection it seems to be much more at home in this one. The scariest part is that some people are so taken in by the warmist hoopla that they are making life changing decisions based on it. It’s very sad.

    I wonder if Al lies awake at night worrying about the size of his carbon footprint or whether he and Tipper should not have had all their kids ?

    I doubt it somehow, the green movement gone mad has a lot to answer for.

    “The stakes are higher for his wife, Mimi. He says having a second child could have too high an environmental cost. “We’ve had the discussion of, ‘If we have another biological child, it means we never fly,’” plus doing other things to offset the child’s carbon footprint, said Mimi Ikle-Khalsa. “I’m 40, so my clock is going Boom! Boom! Boom! Sometimes I just roll my eyes and go, ‘Come on, honey, think about who our child could be!’”

    http://www.startribune.com/nation/43652517.html?page=1&c=y

  48. Andrew P

    “I am surprised that this comment (which I am sure many will find offensive) passed through un-moderated.”

    Actually that was a near quote from good old Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear fame. He subsequently apologised for the Scottish and blind (one-eyed) references.

  49. When making things up about the cost of AGW, “peer review” and “publication” becomes not so important.

    This short read is a stunning example of academia feeding the Waxmans garbage.

    Enjoy.

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/UO+study+finds+huge+costs+from+warming.-a0195939986

    “The study has not gotten an independent review and has not been submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal peer-reviewed journal Refereed journal Academia A professional journal that only publishes articles subjected to a rigorous peer validity review process. Cf Throwaway journal. . But Doppelt said the methodology and results were reviewed by experts on the climate economics steering committee”

  50. We continually elect lawyers (or at least people with law degrees) to political office in America. Is it any wonder they nothing about science?

    Unless the curriculum has been further watered down since I got my master’s degree in the mid 90’s, the only science requirement for a BA (the minimum prerequisite for law school) is a first year lab science.

    Arts students do not take physics or chemistry as a rule. They usually take intro biology, ecology or geology. Most colleges even have “special” sections of these for non-science majors where the curriculum is watered down and where “labs” are more like demonstrations..

    I know that the typical lawyer doesn’t have much more background in sciences than that. The lawyers I work with (I work in the environmental sciences realm) rely on “expert” witnesses. They really don’t give a snot about science per se, and know even less about it.

    A lawyer’s concern is wrapped up in the meaning of words. Their need for experts extends only as far as finding those who support their interpretation of the law (preferably ones with lots of peer-reviewed papers). The same holds for lawyers who become politicians.

    In Waxman’s case even the EPA has come out on the record stating his bill is not grounded in science. His statement about ice evaporation is therefore not too big of a surprise.

    Yesterday I listened to some of Waxman’s testimony from Thursday I don’t know if the guy is a lawyer, but I can say without hesitation that he is definitely a green loon. He doesn’t have the slightest clue about science and simply repeats the most alarmist crud that there is out there (and badly at that).

    My fingers are firmly crossed that his bill doesn’t even pass the House – and if it does, that the Senate will kill it.

  51. Roger Sowell (11:55:29) :

    Ron de Haan (10:28:30) :

    “What Waxman should read in order to look less stupid:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/some-global-warming-qa-to-consider-in-light-of-the-epa-ruling/”

    I read Dr. Spencer’s statements, and with all due respect to the good Doctor, unfortunately he is wrong on at least one point. Dr. Spencer stated: “Because the Clean Air Act is exempt from cost/benefit analysis, it does not matter if regulations end up causing ten times more harm than good. “

    This is just not true. The section of the Clean Air Act in question, Section 202(a), does require that EPA consider the costs of compliance. In fact, the word “cost” or “costs” is used 5 times in Section 202(a), and 15 times in the entire Section 202.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00007521—-000-.html

    Thanks Roger,

    I will post your comment at his site.

  52. Ron de Haan, thanks for linking to Roy Spencer’s Q & Q. If you are in contact with Dr. Spencer, you might suggest that he correct the percentage of the atmosphere that consists of CO2. The 3% that he shows in the Q & A is off by 2 orders of magnitude. Other than that, Dr. Spencer’s piece is excellent.

  53. The scary part is that they invite Al Gore to discuss implementation of the cap and trade without any discussion of the current state of the science, as if it IS no longer in question. The debate is over it seems (at least for Congress). Hate to say it, but we’re screwed…it’s just a matter of how much.

    I think they realize the ocean and solar cycles well enough to know they better get something in place within the next year or two max or it might be game over (at least Al does). After all, gotta pay off those deficits somehow…

    If you ever had an inkling to write you’re congressman, now is the time! Wake up sheeple!

  54. Stephen Brown (12:16:47) :

    “I tried to watch the Gore ’speech’ to the Congessional Committee, I really did. But only thirty seconds of Gore’s blether made me want to throw up. His sactimonius delivery, his absolute refusal to meet someone like Lord Monckton who would destroy each and every pompously made ‘point’ and his very tone of voice made my stomach churn”.

    Stephen,
    I had the same experience.

    Besides that I got sweaty hands and a wet nose!

    I immediately had to think about the Swine Flu.

  55. The only thing which is close to true is the sentence fragment about a tipping point, but it would take an asteroid to achieve that. I’d ask how these people get elected, but Obama has shown us how.

  56. Well. If they knew what they were doing and were good at it, they’d be in the private sector.

  57. Thank you Mr. Goddard. I had a feeling someone might recognize the line. “How do you know he’s the King?” “‘Cause ‘e ‘asn’t got (snip) all over ‘im!!”

  58. US and British govt representatives effortlessly demonstrate that their knowledge of the theory of climate change is on a par with their knowledge of the theory of economics.

    Tonyb

  59. Roger Sowell is correct from the standpoint that the section of the Clean Air Act the endangerment finding applies to does indeed mention cost-benefit analysis. But in the case of the regulation of GHG’s, it appears that this will not apply because the EPA will be following the ‘precautionary principle’. I have reworded my blog to clarify:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/some-global-warming-qa-to-consider-in-light-of-the-epa-ruling/

    and you can read one legal opinion regarding this issue here:

    http://www.mcguirewoods.com/news-resources/item.asp?item=3895

  60. Waxman the personification of inevitable failure?

    From Seablogger:
    “And at what price? Henry Waxman is deciding your future right now, behind the closed door of his office, where he is bribing votes for his hideous legislation. I cannot say often enough or loudly enough: THIS MUST BE STOPPED!”

    http://www.seablogger.com/?p=13779

  61. Hey Folks – keep in mind that when the time comes, and it’s generally discussed that CO2 is not a climate driver – there will be equally gifted politicians pushing our side. The trick is to stay consistent and to blast them even when they are aligned, but for stupid reasons. We wouldn’t want to have zero credibility the way these warmist look right now.

  62. I think this really helps explain the level of understanding our Congress has regarding this issue. Facts just get in the way of his opinion.

    I can’t say how sincere he is, or if he just wants to increase taxes and government.

  63. Stan Needham (14:08:30) :
    “….you might suggest that he correct the percentage of the atmosphere that consists of CO2. The 3% that he shows in the Q & A is off by 2 orders of magnitude.”
    ——————–
    As I read Dr Spencer, he is referring not to the absolute concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in this section, but to the CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect.
    ——————-
    DR Spencer:
    ISN’T CO2 THE ATMOSPHERE’S MAIN GREENHOUSE GAS?
    No. Water vapor accounts for about 85% or 90% of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, clouds account for another 5% or 10%. CO2 represents only about 3%, methane even less.
    ———————–
    I understand this to say that
    Water vapor is about 85 – 90% [of the greenhouse effect]
    Clouds account for 5% or 10% [of the greenhouse effect]
    CO2 represents only about 3% [of the greenhouse effect]

    And although he does not say it, the man-made portion of that 3% is even smaller IMHO.

  64. Stan Needham (14:08:30) :

    “Ron de Haan, thanks for linking to Roy Spencer’s Q & Q. If you are in contact with Dr. Spencer, you might suggest that he correct the percentage of the atmosphere that consists of CO2. The 3% that he shows in the Q & A is off by 2 orders of magnitude. Other than that, Dr. Spencer’s piece is excellent”.

    Stan,

    I have passed it on.
    I think he wrote that the anthropogenic CO2emissions represent only 3% (Jan Veizer mentioned 5%) of the total CO2 budget. I am not sure and I can’t check at the moment because his site does not produce the article at the moment.

    Thanks

  65. Steven Goddard (11:18:24) :

    > Way OT – the last “swine flu epidemic” occurred when Jimmy Carter was president.

    It was President Ford who ordered the vaccine to be produced and indemnified the drug companies after they couldn’t obtain insurance.

  66. John Galt (15:35:41) :

    “I think this really helps explain the level of understanding our Congress has regarding this issue. Facts just get in the way of his opinion.

    I can’t say how sincere he is, or if he just wants to increase taxes and government.”

    John,

    Any sensible person with such a file at his desk undertakes a sensible amount of basic research in order to fill the gaps of knowledge.

    Anyhow, that is what a sensible and responsible politician should do.

    Waxman obviously did not.

    Otherwise he would not have made the remarks as he did.

    Therefore it is my conclusion that he is only focusing at the final result.

    Cap & Trade = Speculation, taxes and green shackles.

  67. He is not speaking to scientists or about science, he is speaking to a gullible public who just nod their head in agreement to hide their ignorance. This carbon cap and trade is all about money, corruption and power. Science has been corrupted to serve political interests, which is deeply neo-malthusian at it’s roots. Living standards of middle class America , which have been in decline over 30 years, will plunge in the next 10 years.

    Guys like Waxman and other politicians embrace their right to tell the Noble Lie. The truth is not for the ignorant masses, they are simply told what they need to be told to get their acceptance of these plans which are not in their best interests, but serve a larger good. Of course, the larger good is what is good for the elitists who fund the political and pseudo science agenda, and control the MSM who embrace it.

  68. deadwood (13:55:31) :
    “We continually elect lawyers (or at least people with law degrees) to political office in America. Is it any wonder they (know) nothing about science?”

    I attended a federal trial maybe a decade or more ago in Pensacola about “contaminating the navigable waters of the U.S.” The government’s “expert witness” confused the prefixes “milli” and “micro” several times. Neither the judge or the lawyers noticed.

    Later he was asked to calculate how many somethings, and the old retired engineer sitting next to me immediately leaned over and whispered, “That would be about so-many.” The witness said he didn’t have a calculator. The court furnished one. He pounded away for maybe 30-40 seconds and then said he couldn’t solve the problem because, “the calculator doesn’t have enough significant digits.”

    He got away with that answer!

    I’ve always wondered how he would have functioned in the era of the slide rule.

  69. Not only stunning, but scary:
    This is what we have come to:

    Powerful committee chairs in Congress who (apparently) have not the slightest familiarity with even basic science, engineering, geology, natural history, etcetera; that are now trying to force fundamental policy changes that will have huge and above all unnecessary detrimental impacts on our economic future, driven almost completely by blind adherance to the politically-correct dogma of the eco-extremist far left.

    AGW truly has taken on many if not most of the characteristics of religion; and fanatic, dogmatic, intolerant religion at that. One can only hope that the voices of science, reason, and hard data can prevail against the forces of the AGW version of the Inquisition. And even if much of the MSM is still in the tank for Al Gore, Jim Hansen, et. al, thanks to the internet and the hard work of reasoned skeptics the voices of common sense are being heard; i.e.:
    This website, icecap.us, the Heartland Institute, scienceandpublicpolicy.org, climatedepot, and others.

    And, finally, there is of course our old friend the Sun:
    We may still be a ways from a Maunder Minimum, but if ”all quiet on the Solar front” continues much longer surely we may soon be on a par with the Dalton Minimum.

    We live in interesting times. . . . .

  70. Robert Rust (15:34:04) :

    Hey Folks – keep in mind that when the time comes, and it’s generally discussed that CO2 is not a climate driver – there will be equally gifted politicians pushing our side. The trick is to stay consistent and to blast them even when they are aligned, but for stupid reasons. We wouldn’t want to have zero credibility the way these warmist look right now.

    Robert,

    I get your message.

    Unless we have to deal with Runaway Global Stupidity which will take place in Copenhagen, December 2009.

  71. Now we have more hysteria about something humans have been experiencing for many many generations. Swine flu has been passed to humans for at least seven thousand years. An interesting hypothesis for why pork was removed from Jewish and Arab diets even though the pig was first domesticated in the Fertile Crescent is that a mass outbreak of illness in the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE was linked to cohabitation with pigs.

    The Green religion does the same thing today (among other things they co-opt from traditional religion) by latching on to hysteria over diseases and says we should end domestication of animals. So just as Western Asiatic culture sent the pig back to the wild, Green activists suggest we do the same for all species, including humans, which would require a drastic reduction in the number of living species. It’s called rewilding:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewilding

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewilding_(_Green_Anarchism_)

    Instead of looking up to the stars for our future there are those who wish to return us to the caves (and in the mean time suffer under socialism). Surely if they wanted wildlife protected from humans they would embrace post-human ideology that would enable us to use very little resources no matter how many of us there are and would enable us to leave the planet.

  72. In reply to Roy Spencer (15:24:03)

    Dr. Spencer, it is an honor to see my name mentioned by one so respected as you. My Mom would be so proud!

    Thank you for the McGuireWoods article. It is a sad day for America, as we appear to have crested the hill where environmental regulations are designed to prevent known harms, and now descend the slippery slope of forging regulations to fend off harms that are not only speculative, but are very likely non-existent.

    This precautionary approach will create an additional disadvantage to any country that embraces it, with the advantage to those who do not.

  73. Micajah (13:31:01) :
    Why did Tavis Smiley embarrass Representative Waxman (D-of course) by posting this amazing display of Waxman’s ignorance? Is Smiley a mole at PBS working for the vast right-wing conspiracy?

    You’re assuming Mr. Smiley recognized the ignorance.

  74. Has anyone actually confirmed this alleged statement from Congressman Waxman? This isn’t some goofy Internet misquote, right? I have a hard time believing that a thinking person would make such a nonsensical statement.

  75. He meant a lot of pigs are held down by that ice cap. When it finally evaporates, pigs will fly.

  76. We’are all lucky the tundra isn’t at the equator. The additional centrifugal force would be the demise of us all.

  77. “Waxman would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle.”

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    Very, very good. I think this should be the quote/comment of the week………………..

  78. PaulH (16:46:00) :

    “Has anyone actually confirmed this alleged statement from Congressman Waxman? This isn’t some goofy Internet misquote, right? I have a hard time believing that a thinking person would make such a nonsensical statement.”

    Oh yeah! You can view the alleged statement and transcript on the PBS archives of the Tavis Smiley show. Here’s the link:

    http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200904/20090413_waxman.html

    Enjoy the science lesson with voodoo economics thrown in for free!

  79. I feel a small sense of satisfaction at your selection of Mr. Waxman’s statement for QOTW, since I think I may have been the first to quote it here, in a comment I made to the post on the EPA’s proposed CO2 rule. If you read the transcript of the whole interview, what strikes me as even more amazing than the abysmal ignorance displayed by Waxman, is the interviewer’s evident inability to recognize the stupidity of what he was hearing. Of course Mr. Smiley works at NPR, where no challenge or critique of any Democrat position is expected or even allowed. Since this interview, stories have emerged of Cong. Waxman trying to garner votes for cap and trade legislation by bartering offers of extra carbon credits to members whose districts would be adversely affected, which IMHO would be all of them. The Democrats are in a serious bind, since the funding they require to advance their agenda of socialized healthcare and gauranteed college education for everyone, including illegal immigrants, depends on continuing the successful demonization of the evil carbon, and events are conspiring to derail that demonization. They realize that if we get past September with Arctic ice still rebounding even the MSM’s uncritical cheerleading will not be enough to maintain the charade. Hence we have the rising crescendo of climate catastrophe stories to push their wobbling wagon over the finish line before the wheels fall off.

  80. That is really possible: It is called Lyophilization:)

    lyophilization it is a means of drying, achieved by freezing the wet substance and causing the ice to sublime directly to vapor by exposing it to a low partial pressure of water vapor

  81. From a native Californian:

    I wholeheartedly apologize for the lunacy that my great state has brought forth. I am embarrassed to even say I was born in this state…

    Yes, it is that bad.

    HZ

  82. A banana for the first person who can establish a significant difference between “Precautionary Principle” and Cheney’s “One Percent Doctrine”…

  83. I have a lot of faith in the intelligence and sincerity of WUWT readers so I ask y’all a serious question. Why does this man wants to destroy our country? What have we done that he wants to pass legislation with no basis in science or fact that is so detrimental to our way of life and our childrens’ future?

    Thanks for helping me understand,

    Craig

  84. The concept of savvy politicians is all wrong. Does anyone remember “Gulliver’s Travels?”

    This charade is more like “Gullible’s Travails”.

  85. John Edmondson (11:14:39) :
    This man is a genius compared to our “primeminister” the one eyed scottish idiot.

    As a person of Scottish heritage, I am offended, sir, at your lackadaisical characterization of Gordon Brown. “Scottish” should be capitalized, and “one-eyed” needs a hyphen.
    .

    Roy Spencer (15:45:19) :
    NO…3% refers to the fraction of the greenhouse effect that is due to CO2.

    It is also (coincidentally?) the percentage of CO2 contributed by human sources (IPCC 2001).
    .

    Bill McClure (10:44:47) :
    We forget. Congressmen have lobbyists to tell them what to do. The rest of us depend on the newspaper.

    Lucky for us that journalism majors have a better understanding of science than politicians. Since the only thing that can save us is an immediate and severe Maunder, the AGW crowd is right. We ARE doomed.

  86. Steven Goddard (11:18:24) :

    Way OT – the last “swine flu epidemic” occurred when Jimmy Carter was president.

    yeah, not hearing a lot about that.

    But on “Savage Nation”, it’s speculated as being a terrorist plot. Great mind there.

    NOT!

  87. I haven’t seen anyone refer to the pending bill as the ‘Waxman-Malarkey’ bill. Kinda jumps out when you think of it…

  88. Craig,
    I believe that there are many politicians who believe that this is the right thing to do. The problem that I have with this legislation is the same that I have with any law that takes more power and money from the people and delivers it to the government. In the world of the mind, this seems like a good, moral thing to do. However we live in the real world, a world of unintended consequences, a world in which taxes really hurts everyone, not just the rich. Where will you cut 4,000 dollars from your budget next year so that the promoters can have their cut of your money? How much will it cost you the year after that? Will it be 6,000 or 8,000 dollars? Will the small businesses in your community lay people off, will they shut down? Will you decide to just do without hot water when your water heater starts leaking? Will your kids wear hand-me-downs? Is the new menu rice and beans? Welcome to the new world.
    I remember when Jimmy Carter decided to put a luxury tax on yachts of a certain size. The people that could buy them put off their purchases and there were layoffs, and we paid the unemployment taxes.
    We were better off when the government concerned itself with defense and mail delivery and not much else. They must stay out of the science business.
    I don’t want the government to do the right thing, I want them to let me do the right thing.

    “You can’t give the government the power to do good without also giving it the power to do bad – in fact, to do anything it wants.”
    -Harry Browne
    “It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.”
    -Robert H. Jackson
    “The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression.”
    -Henry Louis Mencken
    “Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.”
    -Ronald Reagan

  89. Ron de Haan (16:22:42) :
    ‘Unless we have to deal with Runaway Global Stupidity which will take place in Copenhagen, December 2009.’

    ‘Runaway Global Stupidity’ = New name for “CO2 drives the climate”
    CO2 Tax/Cap and Trade, the new TEA TAX
    This is one of the reasons that gave rise to the tea parties. Stupid, corrupt politicians.
    Fax your representatives.

  90. “they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before.”

    Should be highlighted too.

    Being born in 1944 my parents pointed out to me the story of the St Roch and I could visit the ship because I lived in Vancouver.

    “Between 1940 and 1942 St. Roch navigated the Northwest Passage, arriving in Halifax harbor on October 11, 1942. St. Roch was the second ship to make the passage, and the first to travel the passage from west to east. In 1944, St. Roch returned to Vancouver via the more northerly route of the Northwest Passage, making her run in 86 days.”

    The first ship to make it through was Amundsen’s in 1906.

    Here is a map of the two routes.

    http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm

    Here is a post on the MANY ships, boats, etc that have travel the route

    http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-reporting-about-northwest-passage.html

    The lack of knowledge of history of people like Waxman and Tom Brokaw (who repeated this error in his latest documentary Global Warming – the new Challenge (or something like that )) is profound. And frightening that they have the ability to spread these misconceptions and are not challenged. They should all be required to go back to elementary school.

  91. Craig from Belvidere (18:18:24) :
    . . . Why does this man want to destroy our country? What have we done that he wants to pass legislation with no basis in science or fact that is so detrimental to our way of life and our childrens’ future?

    I doubt that Mr. Waxman consciously desires to “destroy our country.” As near as I can tell he is a career political hack, who faithfully espouses the extreme left-wing agenda of the limousine liberals he represents (without serious opposition). By some accounts he is not exactly the brightest bulb on what is already a fairly dim tree, but the electoral victories of the socialist Democrats have put ideologues like Waxman and Pelosi in positions of power, where they can wreak unthinking harm, all in the name of misguided and brainless “good intentions.”

    Here is what he had to say about the EPA announcement about the threat “pollution” from “greenhouse gases”:

    “The EPA announcement confirms what science has told us – global warming pollution poses a grave threat to the nation’s public healthand welfare. EPA is legally compelled to take action and I commend them for complying with the law. However, I believe it is Congress that should create a comprehensive framework to combat global warming that will break our dependence on foreign sources of energy and help transform our economy with millions of new clean energy jobs.”

    [My emphasis]

    This is the litany according to Axelrod and Obama, for whom Waxman is just a pawn. Waxman long ago jumped upon the “global warming” bandwagon, but here he is just repeating the Administration cant that somehow taxing “carbon” will “transform our economy with millions of new clean energy jobs.”

    Any rational person can see this is sheer poppycock, but the rationale here has little if anything to do with energy, or even climate: it is a way to get control of the entire economy and redistribute wealth, while enhancing their own rule as benevolent dictators. What of course they don’t realize (because they don’t care) is that it will destroy the wealth of the nation, until there is nothing left to distribute.

    /Mr Lynn

  92. “old construction worker (19:11:22) :

    Ron de Haan (16:22:42) :
    ‘Unless we have to deal with Runaway Global Stupidity ”

    I think we’ve reached that tipping point. ;)

  93. Dave Wendt (17:11:28) :
    They realize that if we get past September with Arctic ice still rebounding even the MSM’s uncritical cheerleading will not be enough to maintain the charade.

    Nah, they already moved the goalpost on that one. After prattling for years about ice extent, it’s no longer important. Ice volume is the new metric. A thicker and deeper ice cube is now more important than ice extent spreading albedo glory across the Arctic, because a thicker ice cube makes the water colder.

  94. old construction worker (19:11:22) :

    Ron de Haan (16:22:42) :
    ‘Unless we have to deal with Runaway Global Stupidity which will take place in Copenhagen, December 2009.’

    ‘Runaway Global Stupidity’ = New name for “CO2 drives the climate”
    CO2 Tax/Cap and Trade, the new TEA TAX
    This is one of the reasons that gave rise to the tea parties. Stupid, corrupt politicians.
    Fax your representatives”.

    old construction worker,
    It was not my intention to make you mad!

  95. Recently we’ve had a number of threads on WUWT concerning scientifically-ignorant, but vocal, politicians (on topic), alarmist trumpeting (without number) and one, about a certain British viscount, discounted by US democrats as a contributor to a debate.

    I refer, of course, to the debate sometimes paraphrased as – ‘the debate that is over anyway’.

    No greater contrast could there be than between two groups of people than we have between the likes of Mr. Waxman, his fellow-travelers and, IMHO, intellectual giants such as Lord Monckton.

    Yes, he is no scientist – in the formal sense anyway that only admits into the fraternity those who’ve been through the approved rites of passage. Even, if he had, when younger, decided to embark on a voyage dedicated to scientific study, would he now be accepted by his peers as one of them?
    If he’d become a climate scientist then, unless I’ve badly misjudged him, he would now be a climatological pariah.
    Peer-review when honestly, transparently and skeptically debated has proven to be an invaluable tool for progress and in areas of science untouched and untainted by subjective and political influences – it will remain so.
    Conversely, when a field of study, scientific or otherwise, converges positively or negatively with shared subjective viewpoints then the peer-review process can become tainted by non-objective agendas!

    Lord M is, I believe, a bit of a throwback. A throwback to the days when gentlemen, if bright enough, didn’t worry about conforming to received ideas and gave no heed to the double-yellow line, traffic-warden mentality that sought to impose a border-control mentality upon nature itself!

    He is an anachronism, a most-valuable and rare anachronism to be sure – but thank God he’s with us – Given his ability to listen, to digest, to distill mountains of data into nuggets of gold and then convince his target audience of his logic then, if he was on the warmist side of the house, I’d be sending all my disposable cash to Messrs Waxman and Gore!

    In short, how can a man who has no peers (or at least darned few- and they’re all dead) be peer-reviewed? Cleverness knows no bounds, truth has no frontiers and ignore the pack-baying of pedigreed professionals when a mongrel (however, high-born) picks up the scent!

    If you think that I’ve overplayed the viscounts PR too much and, you also think, that 90 minutes of your life is too much to invest in discovering why I think as I do, then this is not the link for you

  96. Omigod!!!…… I’m so embarrassed for you Americans.

    …. the north pole is gonna evaporate?

    …. the tundra is gonna flip up into the air and go Booo!

    …. Ships are gonna drive down the shipping lanes like a highway and run over all the polar bears.

    …. I think it’s time for Waxman to retire.

  97. J.Hansford (20:17:14) :

    LOL
    What’s wrong “J”, if our leaders say it’s so; it’s so!
    You better fall in line, or we’ll send the Tundra monster
    for you!

  98. While Waxman’s statement is hilarious because of its absurdity, I think he probably meant to say it quite differently than the way that it came out. But given the context of an open hearing when the statement was given, he probably didn’t carefully prepare what he wanted to say in advance. Given a chance to explain, he would probably clarify it so that it made a lot more sense.

    But what this illustrates is not his stupidity, but the fact that he is trying to parrot what he has heard other people say. He has not done any independent and critical thinking about this topic for himself. If he had, it would have come out far more coherently because he had internalized his beliefs. I am reminded of Tim Taylor on the show “Home Improvement” who would receive words of wisdom from his neighbor Wilson, and then absolutely torture them when repeating them to someone else. Having failed to internalized the wisdom, he would spurt out the jargon, but entirely miss the coherence and substance.

    At least Al Gore, I believe, has internalized his beliefs, albeit self-delusionally. Waxman shows himself to be nothing more than a political shill for particular agenda being imposed upon him.

  99. Craig from Belvedere, Mr. Lynn, and others on why Waxman and the AGWers want to do this. I gave another answer before (cannot remember which thread) and now I want to explain a little bit more.

    This comes straight from California’s Air Resources Board and their AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

    ARB (and the Obama administration, and the EPA) claims that implementing all these carbon-reducing measures will create green jobs. If true, it would be good for the economy. They define green jobs in an interesting way, though.

    It turns out that California (and as far as I know, ONLY California) cut energy use per capita since 1960, relative to the other 49 states. The reason, per ARB, is by legal mandates that appliances must be the high efficiency type. The result of using less energy per capita was more disposable income in every Californian’s pocket, which they spent on discretionary items.

    Latte and mocha coffees made by coffee baristas were actually mentioned in a state committee reporting to ARB as examples of the green jobs created. The statistics almost bear out this point, as 33 percent of the jobs created in California were in the retail sector since the reduced energy use began. What they do not crow about is that another 33 percent of all the jobs created were in government. The remaining jobs were scattered about.

    So, ARB (and by extension, Obama and the warmists) believes that cutting carbon, increasing energy prices, and further reducing energy use per capita will result in even more disposable income, which will be spent on even more discretionary items, thereby creating more jobs. They call these green jobs.

    The reality is completely different. The reason California had lower energy use per capita since 1960, is that that date (or near that date) was when air conditioning began to be in widespread use across the country. California, though, did not require much air conditioning due to a favorable climate. That one fact, with the three major cities located along the coast, where the ocean keeps the summers cool, accounts for the lower energy use relative to the other 49 states. The three cities are San Francisco (and surroundings), Los Angeles (and surroundings), and San Diego (and its satellite cities). Air conditioning also uses much more energy in humid areas, but the inland areas of California are very dry, even if they are hot. So, relative to cities like Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, San Antonio, and others across the South, and northern cities such as Chicago, where it is both hot and humid, California’s people use very little power to air condition their homes. Again, it is the local climate, not some law stating refrigerators must use X amount of power.

    But ARB will never admit that. It is the complete Achilles heel in all this AGW nonsense about green jobs.

    It is not about factory workers building solar panels, nor windmills, nor electric cars, and ARB freely admits this in their official documents. Those things will be made overseas and imported. There will be a few jobs on the installation side, but not nearly as many as ARB claims overall.

    So, there you have it. That is what this is all about. A myth, because no air conditioner in the hot, humid towns or cities will use substantially less energy. There may be some benefit from upgrading to new A/C, but it will be offset. Countering any such improvements in air conditioners is the growing use of rechargeable items in the home, such as laptops, iPods, and cell phones. Further increasing electric loads are modern tvs such as plasma tvs, and entertainment centers with all their power consumption.

  100. The Cap & Trade tax is a crushing blow.
    America will go sprawling to the floor in agony.
    The money will be blown on perpetual motion energy schemes.
    Just have a look at the level of understanding in Congress.
    Even worse, listen to the advice they are acting upon.
    And the Topic quote from Waxman the Axeman.
    Highschool dropouts have a tighter grip on science than that guy.

  101. Given the utter stupidity and weakness of the AGW/MMCC theories I think Waxmans statement fits perfectly within the AGW/MMCC narrative, meaningless,ill informed,alice in wonderland mumbo jumbo anti science!
    I feel that even if they started dressing in clown suits and went round blowing bubbles it wouldnt significantly diminish their group gravitas and authority to represent the ‘CONsensus.

    Ill get my coat.

  102. Adolfo Giurfa (17:20:23) :
    That is really possible: It is called Lyophilization:)

    lyophilization it is a means of drying, achieved by freezing the wet substance and causing the ice to sublime directly to vapor by exposing it to a low partial pressure of water vapor
    ——————————-

    Now that’s just from the ridiculous to the sublime !!!!!

  103. somekindofmuffin (22:09:17) :

    “Roger,
    I grew up in San Diego. It gets super hot at times. Most houses don’t have AC, but we ran fans almost 24/7 for July and Aug”

    Yes, I know, the inland communities get warmer than those right on the coast. Yet there is very low humidity. I lived in Thousand Oaks for 20 years, with only a small window AC unit that we almost never used. It gets hot there about one or two weeks each summer, nothing more. I grew up in Houston, TX, and I can tell you that we ran the AC almost continually for months on end. And in the Fall and Spring we ran a dehumidifier that consumed almost as much power as the AC.

    I also lived in Dallas for a few years, and again ran the AC for months at a time, 24/7 to obtain comfort in the stifling heat and humidity.

  104. I don’t have much of a response…
    but I did laugh for about two minutes straight.
    This is about as conscious a stream of thought as Willy Lee’s in Naked Lunch.

  105. This joker seems to be implying that the sea levels are going to fall so that the tundra that lies under the Arctic Ocean will be exposed.

  106. I finally get this blog!

    It’s an outpost heavily manned by, how to say this politely..[snip-not polite enough]? With first rate quotes like this:

    “I remember when Jimmy Carter decided to put a luxury tax on yachts of a certain size. The people that could buy them put off their purchases and there were layoffs, and we paid the unemployment taxes.”

    Yes, we all felt the crash from the yachting business those years. Millions of lives destroyed. Damn those luxury taxes! If only Jimmy Carter had left the yachts alone the world would be a better place. I think anyone buying anything that costs more than $200,000 shouldn’t pay taxes on it, as a way of saying thanks to them for buying it.

    I thought this was a serious science related blog. I didn’t know it had an agenda, not to discuss and enlighten but roar and spread BS. [snip] I kept thinking there’d be discussion about things like facts. Not screaming heads and the occasional conspiracy nut-job with a hat lined with tin-foil.

    When people constantly complain about the people in Govt. (just like any person who goes on and on about one single topic without any ability to moderate themselves..wink, wink) what they are complaining about is who makes up the society we live in. At least with this system of Govt. we get a pretty good chance of seeing different types of people involved in our government. And it is out Govt. No matter how embarrassing they act. You can vote for someone else (sorry but Ayn Rand is dead) or run for office yourself and let the others in society hear you and your ideas out. Our Government tends to be made up of, dumb, smart, arrogant religious, paranoid, crazy, depressed, happy, ineffectual people who are sometimes beholden to special interests. No more and no less then any large private company would be. Heck no more then the people who make up the neighborhood you live in. Unless you’ve gone Kazinski and are holed up in a 12 square foot cabin with guns, water, lysol and a pet racoon called Big Jim

    People say dumb things. Wow. Imagine that. Does that mean they have no valid opinion? That you judge them on this one issue? Or do you look at the combination of their work. For instance I won’t hold it against the Bush Administration that the largest attack on American soil in history happened on their watch. I’ll judge them by the totality of their 8 years in power.

    Next we will tackle ‘life is not fair.’ And move on to, ‘Not everyone has a MASTERS DEGREE in SCIENCE!’

    But by working together and finding common ground, we can all benefit. But if your idea of Society is one which only looks to your particular single interest or specialty, you will be disappointed and may start carrying around signs that question Obama’s birth certificate and the right of the city to enforce parking laws. But that’s what keeps this little tide-pool interesting. A place you can stop by, look in and be amazed with all the weird creatures. And by that I mean not only this blog, but the entire planet. A tide-pool run wild indeed.

    Reply: A couple of snips and this became approvable. ~ charles the moderator

  107. I don’t have much of a response…
    but I did laugh for about two minutes straight.
    This is about as conscious a stream of thought as Willy Lee’s in Naked Lunch.
    OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi

  108. mfearing (01:01:09) :

    I finally get this blog!

    It’s an outpost heavily manned by, how to say this politely..[snip-not polite enough]?

    Note to mfearing:

    Your comments are generally without merit.

    You are in very small part correct – many people with different backgrounds comment on this blog – some have a scientific background, some do not.

    Most share a common view – that humanmade global warming is NOT a threat to humanity, but the irrational fear of global warming will lead to a massive misallocation of scarce global resources that should be spent on real problems, not squandered on false fears like global warming.

    But even those who have a contrary view are allowed to comment – unlike many warmist blogs.

  109. It is fun mocking ignorant politicians. However Mr. Waxman is no more ignorant than nearly all climate scientists who believe that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere.
    Climate science is the problem not Mr Waxman.

    Climate scientists, formerly geographers, cannot understand physics, it’s too hard. It involves equations and abstract concepts. They can only grasp simple metaphors and the adding and subtraction of 3 digit numbers in energy balance diagrams.

    The lower atmosphere is warmer than the upper atmosphere because of the effect of the earth’s gravity on the nitrogen and oxygen that make up 99% of the air. Boring nitrogen is never mentioned by climate scientists.

    The cooling of the last few years and the economic slowdown has lessened the effect of green scares, not climate scientists.

    The greenhouse/ blanket/ trapping effect of gases in the air does not exist. Until climate scientists understand this, politicians and the greens will continue to use it to alarm and mislead people.

  110. Stunning attitude common in our government elites. I shake my head, everytime I hear about Prince Charles. Then, remember people lose their jobs over their critisim of them.

  111. mfearing

    We’ve all been there. Though I think you’ll find more interesting “facts” here than most other places and, more diverse political opinion.

    What’s wrong with a bit of banter?

  112. to balance Waxman’s folly with an intelligent economic analysis on de-carbonization, I’ll re-post a follow-up to Kim’s recommendation on the Goklany thread of a few days ago (believe this is relevant and not OT):

    “kim (21:59:13) :

    If you haven’t read it yet, go read Peter Huber in the City Journal: ‘Bound to Burn’.”

    thanks, Kim, for recommending this excellent article – a MUST read! – taking Carbon truly personally!

    here is the direct link:

    http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_carbon.html

  113. mfearing,
    My quote about the luxury tax was not to suggest that it ruined the country but that the consequences of it were unintended and were not helpful to the American people. Whenever the government tries to pick winners and losers unintended consequences happen. The cap and trade bill is so large that the unintended consequences of it are unimaginable.
    USA Today has a short article that discusses the unintended consequences of another government action here:

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2009-02-04-executive-pay-cap-consequences_N.htm

    The last sentence, “The unintended consequence is you end up killing the institution you tried to save,” says Johnson. “You drive away the good people.”

    I’m afraid that the unintended consequences of cap and trade are much worse than anyone now imagines. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
    Thanks,
    Mike Bryant

  114. George Gillan (12:37:05) wrote :”Sadly, Waxman is merely the tip of the iceberg.”

    So maybe he’ll evaporate?

    I haven’t seen this depth of stupidity since Dan Quayle, but he was one person. This time the affliction seems endemic to the entire Democratic Party.

  115. My Congresscritter is Greg Walden who had the temerity to question the Profit, Algore, on use of timber resources,he was declared an unbeleiever,and gaveled down by the commitee chairman- the Man Of Wax….
    Having an interesst of the Enlightenment and Reformation,(the one would not have happened without the other.)-things haven’t changed all that much in 450 years…

  116. @mfearing:

    Cap-and-trade and regulation of ‘greenhouse gas pollution’ are political issues. It’s amusing to hear what some of the proponents of these things have to say. Do you believe that Waxman really understands the scientific issues involved?

    And what about Waxman and the other proponents not allowing testimony from anybody who disagrees? Is that good government? Is that how the political process is supposed to work?

    Yes, ideals and reality are often far apart, and these types of abuses are committed by both parties. Does that make it right?

    BTW: Are we to take it that you find nothing scientifically incorrect, exaggerated or unfounded with Waxman’s statement? Are you saying that Waxman’s statement represents the best understanding of climate science at this time?

  117. WeatherMan (16:46:44) wrote :

    “He meant a lot of pigs are held down by that ice cap. When it finally evaporates, pigs will fly.”

    If so, he must believe that it has indeed evaporated, considering the swine “flew” in Mexico and the US.

    NO! DON’T HURT ME!

  118. Who the heck elected these gross incompetent politicians? Including the biggest idiot at the top? Gee Whiz. No one admits to it, but he sure as heck got his butt in there, didn’t he? Commie Obama. Plus I guess you guys know we are in global cooling, not global warming what goofballs!

  119. P. J. O’Rourke is the H. L. Mencken of our day. Change the number here to 435 and this description of the Senate will apply to Rep. Waxman’s House of Horrors.

    “The founding fathers, in their wisdom, devised a method by which our republic can take one hundred of its most prominent numbskulls and keep them out of the private sector where they might do actual harm.” — P.J. O’Rourke

  120. mfearing

    If you wonder why this particular article is full of non-scientific commentary, you need to look at what Mr. Watts categorized it as:

    Categories : ridiculae

    So, ridiculous commentary is welcome. However, if you peruse other articles you will find a more focused discussion. After a while you will again notice that certain contributors also provide serious scientific commentary, while the rest of us add our laymen comments.

  121. “People say dumb things. Wow. Imagine that. Does that mean they have no valid opinion?’

    Of course it does. All opinions are not equally valid. Opinions based on ignorance are never valid. The opinion that 1. the polar icecap, apart from Greenland, covers land, and 2. that it is ‘evaporating’ is grounded in an ignorance of geography and elementary school physics.

  122. What? No photo of Waxie for this thread? It would be reassuring to see him (especially those low-angle shots), whenever he’s been out foraging. They say that when Punxatawnee Hal truly emerges it’s a sure sign of spring. Unfortunately, it’s a snowy April 27 here in Colorful Colorado, and I’m beginning to worry.

  123. Hot off the wire, and a QOTW nomination:

    On the Associated Press – Obama promises major investment in science.

    ” “I believe it is not in our character, American character, to follow — but to lead. And it is time for us to lead once again. I am here today to set this goal: we will devote more than 3 percent of our GDP to research and development [whoa!],” Obama said in a speech at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences.

    “We will not just meet but we will exceed the level achieved at the height of the space race,” he said.”

    And for me, the money-quote:

    The president drew chuckles when he added: “I want to be sure that facts are driving scientific decisions, not the other way around.”

    .

    If that’s what it could it be taken for, then he’s leadin’ ‘n I’m followin’!

  124. The polar cap is covering the Arctic Ocean not the Arctic Tundra is it not.

    I mean a lot of land including the tundra is covered by ice and snow in the winter and then in the spring it all goes up in the air for the summer?

    Obongo and his minions are doing in the USA and much of the world a long with it.

  125. “When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.” -Thomas Jefferson to Madame de Stael, 1807.

    Which wrongs are being pressed upon you and me? Which wrongs are we supposed to bear? Are we supposed to put up with politicized science, fudged data and hysterical prophecies of catastrophe? Should we accept the new ruling class that would overturn the principles of democracy to feather their nests? What about confiscatory taxes to fight an imagined threat? What other wrongs are you being asked to shoulder because your betters believe you will acquiesce?

    What is the moral course?

  126. Unfortunately the majority of voters in this Country do not make their decisions based on the intelligence of the candidate or knowledge of issues but rather on how big a government check they feel the candidate can bring to them. You keep bringing the folks back home a big check, you keep getting elected.

  127. She said Obama had broken with eight years of denial under George Bush and was determined to act on climate change. “The United States is fully engaged and ready to lead and determined to make up for lost time both at home and abroad,” she said. “The United States is no longer absent without leave.”

    Gee, I think this is a lie…….I recall Bush drinking the CO2 koolaide as well.

  128. Ted Clayton:

    And for me, the money-quote:

    The president drew chuckles when he added: “I want to be sure that facts are driving scientific decisions, not the other way around.”

    “If that’s what it could it be taken for, then he’s leadin’ ‘n I’m followin’!”

    Calm down, Ted. That’s just Elmer Gantry Obama talk. Look at the big picture:

    Obama wants more money to funnel into the right pockets. It’s a bribe, no more and no less. Those who drink the Kool Aid get showered with money and status, and those who dispute AGW will be either those already retired, or those risking their jobs.

    It will be just like today — but with more tax dollars bringing more corruption.

  129. mfearing (01:01:09) :

    “I finally get this blog!

    It’s an outpost heavily manned by, how do I say this, a place you can stop by, look in and be amazed with all the weird creatures. And by that I mean not only this blog, but the entire planet. A tide-pool run wild indeed”.

    mfearing (01:01:09) :

    A typical case Runaway Global Stupidity, I see it’s spreading.

  130. RoyfOMR (20:14:29) :

    Recently we’ve had a number of threads on WUWT concerning scientifically-ignorant, but vocal, politicians (on topic), alarmist trumpeting (without number) and one, about a certain British viscount, discounted by US democrats as a contributor to a debate.

    I refer, of course, to the debate sometimes paraphrased as – ‘the debate that is over anyway’.

    No greater contrast could there be than between two groups of people than we have between the likes of Mr. Waxman, his fellow-travelers and, IMHO, intellectual giants such as Lord Monckton.

    Yes, he is no scientist – in the formal sense anyway that only admits into the fraternity those who’ve been through the approved rites of passage. Even, if he had, when younger, decided to embark on a voyage dedicated to scientific study, would he now be accepted by his peers as one of them?
    If he’d become a climate scientist then, unless I’ve badly misjudged him, he would now be a climatological pariah.
    Peer-review when honestly, transparently and skeptically debated has proven to be an invaluable tool for progress and in areas of science untouched and untainted by subjective and political influences – it will remain so.
    Conversely, when a field of study, scientific or otherwise, converges positively or negatively with shared subjective viewpoints then the peer-review process can become tainted by non-objective agendas!

    Lord M is, I believe, a bit of a throwback. A throwback to the days when gentlemen, if bright enough, didn’t worry about conforming to received ideas and gave no heed to the double-yellow line, traffic-warden mentality that sought to impose a border-control mentality upon nature itself!

    He is an anachronism, a most-valuable and rare anachronism to be sure – but thank God he’s with us – Given his ability to listen, to digest, to distill mountains of data into nuggets of gold and then convince his target audience of his logic then, if he was on the warmist side of the house, I’d be sending all my disposable cash to Messrs Waxman and Gore!

    In short, how can a man who has no peers (or at least darned few- and they’re all dead) be peer-reviewed? Cleverness knows no bounds, truth has no frontiers and ignore the pack-baying of pedigreed professionals when a mongrel (however, high-born) picks up the scent!

    If you think that I’ve overplayed the viscounts PR too much and, you also think, that 90 minutes of your life is too much to invest in discovering why I think as I do, then this is not the link for you

    RoyfOMR (20:14:29) :

    It’s our ability to “think”, “learn”, “argue”, “negotiate” and “compromise” that has made us survive and adapt to the life on this planet surviving the natural threats but at the same time our ability to think has become our biggest threat.

    This threat becomes evident when we experience the current political doctrine that blocks out (scientific and moral) integrity and builds policies based on deception, fraud, manipulation and semi-science.

    If there ever has been a moment in human history where our ability to think will be put to it’s very limits, it is right now.

    Not to find solution to face natural threats because we have lived with those al along but to stop a political ideology determined to send humanity back into the dark ages.
    We have to fight the illusion that Humanity, because of it’s growing numbers has become a threat to the survival of this planet and the we have to fight the ludicrous idea that we are in need of five planets to maintain our current consumption patterns.

    This is what we are up against and they are moving fast.

    Mockton is a great thinker who has addressed all facets of this ill doctrine, leaving no stone on the other and we are indeed lucky to have him on our side.

    Look for more Moncton papers here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

  131. Mike Bryant (09:17:59) :

    “When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.” -Thomas Jefferson to Madame de Stael, 1807.

    Which wrongs are being pressed upon you and me? Which wrongs are we supposed to bear? Are we supposed to put up with politicized science, fudged data and hysterical prophecies of catastrophe? Should we accept the new ruling class that would overturn the principles of democracy to feather their nests? What about confiscatory taxes to fight an imagined threat? What other wrongs are you being asked to shoulder because your betters believe you will acquiesce?

    What is the moral course?

    Mike Bryant (09:17:59) :

    Wrong question.

    The question should be: What is the immoral course.

  132. Yeah Henry, there’s a lot of tundra under that ice cap for all those ships to walk accross!!! This is an example of the type of tyrannical government that Thomas Jefferson warned about. I suppose that Thomas Jefferson would be shocked at how stupid and socialistic his successors would be!

  133. Call me mad, but instead of the “Waxman & Markey” bill, it should be re-titled the “Waxman is full of Malarkey” bill

  134. Roger Sowell (10:50:13) :

    Politicians speak in carefully chosen words (written by their staff) and (usually) only when their staff and advisors have chosen the time, place, and manner. Even a supposedly “spontaneous” Town-Hall type performance is just that, a well-rehearsed and practiced performance sometimes worthy of an Academy Award.

    It appears to me that Rep. Waxman deserves a Razzy, for bungling his lines so badly. Or a better staff, who can actually write.

    Hence a favorite tee shirt: “Elect Better Actors.”

  135. Mr. Waxman doesn’t need to have any understanding of the science that justifies the massive regulation he is supporting for two reasons. First, his campaign contributors want it. Second, almost every major news publication and network says the science is settled and reducing carbon emission is the best thing that can possiblybe done.

    What more does Mr. Waxman need to know? Go against the wishes of his supporters? Attempt to contradict the reporting of the LA Times? Or CNN? As stated above, Mr. Waxman is not a scientist.

    Thank goodness we don’t have those aniti-science Republicans in charge anymore!

  136. Mr. Waxman is merely lobbying on behalf of the new “culture of science” that President Obama so ardently wishes to establish in America. As opposed to the evidently very unscientific cultures that accompanied all the other presidents.

    If you don’t like the good Congressman’s science, you’d better brace yourselves — because, friends, he’s just the “tip of the iceberg.”

    (A nice touch, eh? Global warming, ice berg, get it??)

    Repy: Iceberg, Goldberg, what’s the difference? ~ charles the standup moderator

  137. Craig from Belvidere (18:18:24) :

    Finally a question I actually know something about. I have an advanced degree in economics and I am also a tax lawyer. I lurk here because I have always enjoyed science and find this blog both informative and entertaining.

    I see the entire AGW movement as three-pronged with different people having different agendas.

    In political terms, the cap and trade and most of the green “movement” is simply a grab for power. More government control equals more power.

    In economic terms, the government is seizing control of the means of production, which is simply socialism in its purest definitional form, not meant to be an inflammatory term. Individuals, like Al Gore, are engaged in individual economic rent-seeking behavior. Economic rents are the returns that are being derived in the market above the equilibrium competitive level. Rent seekers like Gore either enter a market in which above equilibrium returns, are being earned, which tends to bring returns down to competitive levels, or they create economic rents by creating a market (carbon offsets anyone?).

    In religious terms, Mother Earth, Gaia, or whatever other name is chosen, is sacred, and we are all sinners and defilers. Throw in more than a handful of doomsday cultists, and all rational discourse goes out of the window.

    Some, like former VP Gore are in all three prongs, increasing the role of government, lining his pockets, and serving as the High Priest and First Prophet of the Gaian Temple.

  138. Smokey (11:00:59) cautioned, “Calm down, Ted.”

    Oh, I got the bubbling enthusiasm amply hedged with a well-padded If-Then structure. ;-)

    You’ll notice, guys, Obama stares right through Dr. James Hansen like he isn’t even there. Have you seen any indication that Obama knows the guy pulls air? He may have done so here & there – but I haven’t seen it.

    Obama is a pragmatist, not a Kool-Aid salesman. He’s a politician who plays for keeps … but he’s also a lawyer, and a Constitutional lawyer, a Harvard intellectual … and an introvert. Introverts have their forms of weirdness, but they’re not strong on pushing Kool-Aid.

    We note that the media are not fond of finding out they’ve ‘been had’ (as in being suckered into provide cover for Cheshire-cat AGW), and we are now standing watch to enjoy the moment when they begin smirking & wagging their head at the climate fairy-stories.

    Obama is the same way. He isn’t going for the ‘build your house on a foundation of sand’ logical sleigh of hand that AGW-arguments have adopted.

    Obama is happy to use popular support for greenhouse warming theories to promote a giant tax-scheme and expansion of government, but I don’t think that he is going to use feather-headed confirmation-biased as a load-bearing structural element in the edifice he wants to build. He has shown a non-affinity for this stuff.

    So yeah, some of the 3% will end up going to more fluff & folly climate science, but I’m not seeing enough to suggest to me that Obama is sitting in any Al Gore church sipping the Kool-Aid himself … calculating how much stained glass the billions will buy.

    Obama wants to look like a sharp dude, and he wants his decisions to stand the test of time.

    Always bear in mind, too, that Obama sits down with the Pentagon rep each day. He does not struggle to get good climate data the way we do. He gets the real deal, interpreted by hard-headed military analysts who’s opinion of climate-hysteria makes your’s & mine look downright soft-hearted.

    I disagree with Obama’s general program-philosophy (pallet-loads of cash airdropped out the back of C-130s), but there’s hope in the view that he’s actually a thinking person’s person. [Still, I voted for the Wasilla winsome and her white-haired sponsor. ;]

    Hold it up as a reminder:

    “I want to be sure that facts are driving scientific decisions, not the other way around.”

  139. Oh, I don’t know. After the eight years of REAL stupidity we’ve just had, this actually doesn’t seem all that bad. I mean, what do you want these guys to sit around and say? Cobalt’s an element? 2+2=4? Is THAT the kind of science you’d prefer? Just the well-established facts, ma’am?

  140. I have been researching this subject (“global warming”) since the mid-1980’s and writing on it since ~2002. In the beginning we so-called “climate skeptics” did not want to talk politics – we just wanted to debate the science.

    The warmists repeatedly tried to intimidate and shut down that debate, insisting “the science is settled” – one of the BIG LIES of our time.

    The truth is, the warmist side refuses to debate because it has no scientific case. Recently, they prevented Monckton from testifying beside Gore. The warmists know that any time they have attempted to debate global warming in an open forum, they have been routed.

    The warmists have predicted catastrophic warming, but Earth is now cooling. In their predictions, the warmists were wrong about the magnitude, and they were even wrong about the sign (+/-). Many skeptics, this writer included, have predicted global cooling, because there is overwhelming evidence that temperature change on Earth is predominantly natural and cyclical, not humanmade. That is the state of the science.

    The warmists continue their blatant falsehoods, insisting that cooling is warming, and the President parrots this nonsense. Waxman and Obama are starting to make George Bush look good. That is the state of the politics.

    [sermon/off]

  141. zunedita373 (19:32:57),

    Being ex-military, I really resented GWB’s misuse of the forces. And, we exacted a sickening toll from Iraq, on false pretexts. But this was the area of Bush’s main damage; not in the climate-field, Kyoto notwithstanding. There isn’t a good-enough link between the trespasses of Bush, and this post about the babble Waxman just spouted. Bush is a red herring, and off-topic, in this thread.

    I don’t expect a Congressman Waxman to be a scientific Fred Astaire on his feet … or a Darwin’s Bulldog. The trick to handling scientific talk as a non-scientific person, though, is a trick that millions master quite handily, without Waxman’s experience in verbal pugilistics – which is normally a big help.

    It’s no tougher than making reasonable religious conversation or commentary, as a non-religious person. Lots of people do it.

    No, nobody is calling for Waxman to recite the Periodic Table, or prove the Limit Theorem. There is plenty of latitude to talk about scientific topics, without presuming to knowledge one doesn’t have, or, in Waxman’s case, resorting to Speaking in Tongues to avoid having ‘dead air’, which is what his statement sounds like.

    Waxman’s quote was vacuous, foolish and unnecessary, and he deserves to be held up for a spot of ridicule. Presumably, he’s capable of better: I hope he makes a more realistic effort next time.

  142. Anthony, Too important to ignore because there is NO TOMORROW:

    Apr 29, 2009
    Responding to the EPA Proposed Endangerment Finding

    By Joseph D’Aleo

    The Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act was signed on April 17, 2009. On April 24, 2009, the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171: Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (PDF). The notice in the Federal Register started the official 60 day clock for comments. Public comments on the proposal must be submitted to EPA by June 23, 2009.

    Technical analyses developed in support of the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act may be found here: Technical Support Document for the Proposed Findings (PDF)

    Although the “cause or contribute” aspect of the endangerment finding was limited to GHGs from new motor vehicles and engines, it is widely understood that once the proposal is finalized, EPA can proceed to other sources regulated ( powerplants, refineries, manufacturing plants) under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    Although EPA did not propose any associated regulations at this time, the endangerment finding is EPA’s first step towards triggering a cascade of CAA programs that will effectively impose strict regulations on a large segment of the American economy. This may include regulations that will affect most all buildings including churches, schools, large and small businesses, the kind of fuels used, the car you drive and, taken to the extreme, how many times you can mow your lawn or blow away your snow or whether you can burn wood in your home stove. The regulations will be just as onerous as cap and trade legislation. The public is unaware that though not a direct tax, the costs of increased regulation and or “cap-and-trade” scheme (really ration-and-tax) will likely run at least $2000 for Americans according to this conservative Heritage Foundation study up to $3100 per family per year according to an MIT study, with increased government control over your entire life, increased job losses and energy shortages. Additional economic analysis showing impacts by state can be found here.

    Write your two Senators, Representative and the President, write a letter to your favorite newpaper or post on a blog discussing the EPA ruling or the government�s planned climate actions. Call in to talk radio and explain the dangers of these proposed actions and cap-and-tax legislation if congress feels pressured to act. You can use the Search ICECAP feature to find supporting info to address each one of the so called science findings which we know are wrong with evidence the fact that temperatures are cooling, sea levels are not rising, global ice is not melting, there are fewer heat waves, less drought, fewer global hurricanes and that CO2 is not a dangerous pollutant but a life giving plant fertilizer that has greatly aided agriculture. You can also address the fact that climate models are failing miserably in all these ways.

    Both scientists and citizens can make comment on the EPA Endangerment Proposal and the ‘findings’ on which it is based. See the Technical Support document on which the findings were based. It is essentially extractions from the revised US CCSP and IPCC AR4 Summaries. A good selection of the comments filed on the initial CCSP report and the EPA ANPR can be found on Icecap here.

    See the EPA web site for how you can submit a comment here. Instructions for filing comments can be found here. Read both documents and refer back to the referenced sections in the IPCC and CCSP. Choose an area (or areas) you feel most qualified to challenge and draft a challenge following carefully the instructions for formatting and submitting above. In your challenge, cite the section and page of the report you are challenging and where possible the quote. Wherever possible cite supporting peer review support for your challenge, including ideally in the case of publishing scientists, your own work. You can use insert topics or authors in SEARCH ICECAP or search tools in Climate Science[link],Climate Audit[link], CO2Science[link], Watts Up With That[link], World Climate Report[link], CEI[link], Heartland[link, link to NYC papers] or just Google. Feel free to contact us for suggestions or to ask about a draft comment you send us. The challenge does not need to be lengthy. Short pithy comments can be just as effective. When you submit comments please send a copy to us so we can put them into a library that is searchable and can be used as a resource in legal challenges.

    In May, there will be public hearings. EPA requests those who wish to attend or give public comments, to register on-line in advance of the hearing. EPA will audio web stream both public hearings. The meeting information pages will be updated with this information as it becomes available. The hearings are scheduled at May 18, 2009, at the EPA Potomac Yard Conference Center, Arlington, VA; and May 21, 2009, at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center in Seattle, WA.

    The Endangerment Finding and the Technical Support Document will become the US version of the IPCC 2007 report. If left unchallenged, there is no tomorrow.

  143. Doesn’t anyoine reading this site actually *understand* climatology? Sigh! I guess that’s too much to wish for – informed discussion. So Waxman recited the scientific facts in very NON-scientific terms. So what? the Arctic ice *is* melting faster than in any time in human history. the tundra *is* melting, releasing trapped greenhouse gasses, that will only accelerate the warming.

    The ONLY things not certainties are the exact proportions of the various causes (yes, burning fossil fuel DOES contribute to it), whether it’s going to reverse from natural causes (we’re sure not going to give up our civilization to save our lives) and whether there’s anything we can do to avert eventual disaster.

    THAT the planet is warming is as much in question as whether the sun is warmer than solid oxygen at standard pressure – not the least bit. We still have less evidence that smoking causes lung cancer – FAR less.

  144. John Klein:

    “…the Arctic ice *is* melting faster than in any time in human history. the tundra *is* melting, releasing trapped greenhouse gasses, that will only accelerate the warming…”. Etc., etc.

    When I’m being ridiculous, the way I usually phrase this is: “Black is white, down is up, evil is good, and global warming causes global cooling. Has a sort of George Orwell ring to it, no?

    Of course if you weren’t kidding, then maybe you could supply us with some actual citations. Like these:

    Arctic sea ice: click

    And notice that Arctic sea ice extent is higher now than in any of the past eight years: click

    And you must be aware that the Arctic is only one Pole. So what about the Antarctic? Well… click

    See? There’s way more new ice in the Antarctic than in the Arctic. So the global ice extent — and we’re talking global climate here — is significantly higher than in the past. And the government folks you believe in have a nasty little habit of “adjusting” the sea ice extent in an alarming way: click

    Have I convinced you? Answer: only if you’re a thinker. If you’re a believer, then all bets are off.

  145. John Klein (14:34:53) :

    Doesn’t anyone reading this site actually *understand* climatology? Sigh! I guess that’s too much to wish for – informed discussion. . .

    Most of the people on this site understand the difference between an hypothesis and the evidence for and against it. That is apparently not true of the ‘global warming’ alarmists.

    . . . So Waxman recited the scientific facts in very NON-scientific terms.

    No, he recited a garbled version of Alarmist propaganda, which the media mistake for ‘scientific facts’. Unfortunately for the propagandists and the media, most of the ‘facts’ you mentioned are not true, as Smokey illustrated above.

    The ONLY things not certainties are the exact proportions of the various causes (yes, burning fossil fuel DOES contribute to it), whether it’s going to reverse from natural causes (we’re sure not going to give up our civilization to save our lives) and whether there’s anything we can do to avert eventual disaster.

    There is no evidence, beyond an increasingly spurious correlation in the last two decades of the 20th century, to support the hypothesisthat CO2 affects global temperature at all. The hypothesis has been falsified by a variety of evidence, including paleo-climatic data, tropospheric temperature measurements, and the last eight years of cooling.

    THAT the planet is warming is as much in question as whether the sun is warmer than solid oxygen at standard pressure – not the least bit. . .

    The planet has clearly been warming, overall, since the end of the last glaciation, though it has mostly leveled off over the last millennium (warmer than now during the Medieval Warm Period, cooler than now during the Little Ice Age). There is no evidence that the disappearance of the ice sheets in the northern hemisphere had anything to do with CO2, nor that any of the temperature fluctuations since then had either.

    Nor, BTW, is there any evidence that a little more warming (and a little more CO2) would be at all detrimental to human civilization. It certainly would be good for agriculture (plants love CO2!).

    Science consists of more than rhetorical talking points; it is more than a catechism. Wake up and take a look at the data.

    /Mr Lynn

Comments are closed.