Wow. This one is really something. Graham goes from supporter to skeptic in the space of a few weeks. Here’s the quote:
“I think they’ve oversold this stuff, quite frankly. I think they’ve been alarmist and the science is in question…”
Graham appeared on Wednesday at a press conference with Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), who was rolling out his own energy bill, a measure that relies heavily on expanding nuclear power and raising fuel economy standards without putting a cap on carbon dioxide emissions. Yesterday, Graham said he didn’t think any energy bill could get 60 votes this year because oil drilling has become too controversial. Today he decided, at the last minute, to back Lugar’s bill.
Reporters asked Graham several times about why he was supporting Lugar’s bill, when just a few months ago he had argued that the Senate shouldn’t pass a “half-assed” bill that lacked hard restrictions on carbon emissions. Graham replied that he now doesn’t think pricing carbon is that important. “The science about global warming has changed,” he noted, offhandedly. “I think they’ve oversold this stuff, quite frankly. I think they’ve been alarmist and the science is in question,” Graham told reporters. “The whole movement has taken a giant step backward.”
more here at Mother Jones news
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
♫♫♫
What goes up must come down
spinning wheel got to go round
Talking about your troubles it’s a crying sin
Ride a painted pony
Let the spinning wheel spin
You got no money, and you, you got no home
Spinning wheel all alone
Talking about your troubles and you, you never learn
Ride a painted pony
let the spinning wheel turn
Did you find a directing sign
on the straight and narrow highway?
Would you mind a reflecting sign
Just let it shine within your mind
And show you the colours that are real
Someone is waiting just for you
spinning wheel is spinning true
Drop all your troubles, by the river side
Catch a painted pony
On the spinning wheel ride
Someone is waiting just for you
spinning wheel is spinning true
Drop all your troubles, by the river side
Ride a painted pony
Let the spinning wheel fly
♫♫♫♫♫♫♫♫♫♫
Well, well, well…
Lindsey Graham is not the SC Senator up for reelection in 2010 (that’s Jim DeMint). But he’s been taking some major political hits in South Carolina for supporting cap-and-trade and running political ads paid for by hard-Left enviro groups.
It doesn’t appear that he understood the underlying science in the past, or that he has made any cognitive progress recently as far as phyics or climatology is concerned, but he can surely see that his next reelection bid will be in jeopardy if he doesn’t jump off the CAGW wagon.
He can’t have helped noticing that Congressman Bob Inglis, the only other South Carolina Republican in Washington to take “climate change” seriously, just came in second with 29% of the vote in his party primary, forcing him into a runoff that he is probably going to lose.
I seriously doubt that Graham is maneuvering to facilitate a unilateral imposition of CO2 caps by the EPA. I suppose he won’t mind, though, that suppressive measures against mining are driving up the price of coal.
Graham is just a very expensive Windsock, nothing more. Why is it neccesary to take all that money from taxpayers to finance the existense of a windsock?
Why not outsource that senator-job to India? Much cheaper.
Folks, have you read this?;
http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/10/bp-is-asking-for-its-punishment%E2%80%94literally/
So….BP invented Cap & Trade? Their punishment will be what they ….invented?
Doesn’t the Graham Cracker have 4 more years in his term? For some reason that sticks in my mind.
Then Sen will be very pleased to know that Anthony Watts Surface Stations paper is coming out soon.
The sooner the better quite frankly. And quite frankly they said the health care bill was dead for a while too.
Quote:
They have oversold this stuff.
Yup, just like they oversold the swine flu pandemic. The following newspaper article says:
quote:
Mr Flynn said: “There is not much doubt that this was an exaggeration on stilts. They vastly over-stated the danger on bad science and the national governments were in a position where they had to take action.”
endquote.
Hmmm. Overstated the danger, based upon bad science. Remind you of anything? Only now are they starting to make the obvious link to AGW.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284133/The-pandemic-Drug-firms-encouraged-world-health-body-exaggerate-swine-flu-threat.html
.
Mari Warcwm says:
June 11, 2010 at 1:03 am
[–snip–]
Now if all our politicians did just a little bit of reading around the subject – I recommend Prof. Robert M Carter’s ‘Climate: The Counter Consensus’. If they read Prof Carter’s book they would all be singing along with Sen Lindsey Graham. What a happy day that would be for the world’s taxpayers.
Words of wisdom:
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
~ Mahatma Gandhi ~
The quintessential global warmist/alarmist.
How on earth does this character get his shoes on in the morning. His shoe size is greater than his IQ.
God Save America…
—
Don’t get your hopes up, guys.
“Best to treat the Bilderberger news with extreme caution: it looks too good to be true.”
Just because the topic is “Global Cooling” doesn’t mean that they’re neccessarily ditching pushing AGW. It COULD be a discussion about how to “hide the decline” and get politicians to enact the “right” measures anyway.
His next primary opponent is going to benefit from my PAC.
Gail Combs says:
June 10, 2010 at 5:22 pm
The Worm turns.
I talked to Senator Burr (R) yesterday and he thinks Cap & trade is a big no no. Congressman Bob Etheridge (D), who i voted for, is a real sleaze. I took a close look at him and he is pro big corporations all the way and anti farmer
You’re not pro big corporations? Take away the corporations and what do you have? Somalia.
Well, there’ll be 60 votes against EPA in the senate come January. But, not 67 to overturn a veto. So, the EPA rule will stand until we throw B Hussein out on his big ears in January of 2013 (good chance the oil well will still be leaking then, too). I don’t think the EPA madness will survive much past February 1, 2013.
Hopefully, the country can keep enough people working to be able to afford the 1850 MWe of zero carbon electricity I help turn out, which will keep me working. Not that being zero carbon is anything to brag about. But, it’s also only $0.03/kw-hr, compared to how much for wind?
Mike G says:
You’re not pro big corporations? Take away the corporations and what do you have? Somalia.
“When all said and done, companies are owned by individuals not legal artefacts, so your assault on the companies is actually an assault on your citizens.”
~Louis Hissink
Lindsey Graham is one of my senators. Many of the posts have made unfounded claims and assumptions concerning him and why he has changed his position. The senator is a professional politicain. And as such, has responded to the reprehensible way that the Dems treated him for trying to work with them. Those who are unfamilar with him need to know or remember that he was part of the “Gang of 12”; and does believe and has taken political hits for trying to enact legislation by working in a bi-partisan manner. I and others have emailed the senator expressing our concern that on climate change that he was going to be “played the fool.” While he was working with Kerry and Lieberman, he was willing to take political hits at a meeting in the Greenville area. He indicated that he knew that it would cost him some votes, but again defended himself in that part of his job was to work with other senators to get legislation passed. When he was stiffed by the Dems, he had to respond, or he would be considered a doormat by his party, his state, and the Dems. So he stabbed them in the back. Was it a reversal, yes. Was it mean and partisan, yes. Did the Dems deserve it, yes! As someone who was considering not voting for him if he continued to support the open check for the US Congress and the transfer of hundreds of millions to Al Gore alone, and other already rich people that CapNtrade represented, I applaud his back stabbing, and am going to vote for him. I sent him email several times and his office has been responsive.
For his looseness with the facts, an uncritical eye has been revealed by many. One example is the burning of the oil spill. Not only was Graham’s statements loose with the facts, those complaining that it made little sense also show a severe undersight. Crude is harder to burn than even #6 fuel oil. It is also full of PCA’s. Polycyclic aromatics. These are known carcinogens at ppb action level. To burn #6 such that it is not an environmental hazrd requires atomization prior to combustion. In boilers, this is accomplished by using part of the steam produced to atomize the fuel. The boiler is started using air, and the air must be of sufficient PSI to atomize or the boiler will not start. It is scientific naivity to think that burning crude lying in (emulsion) and on the surface would not introduce tons of carcinogens to our breathing space for more a large fraction of the east coast. So, perhaps those who think the good senator’s statements are naive should look at their own. Not even natural gas, the cleanest of the fossil fuels, can be burned without releasing known toxins to the environment. CO2 (and H2O) may not be pollutants, but that they are not the only substances releasd from combustion, much less incomplete combustion, and combustion reaction by-products.
—
John F. Pittman had written: “Crude is harder to burn than even #6 fuel oil. It is also full of PCA’s. Polycyclic aromatics. These are known carcinogens at ppb action level.”
Well, the afflotoxins in peanut butter are also “known carcinogens.” Doesn’t keep people from eating peanut butter. Question of levels of potential exposure, and simply saying “parts per billion” doesn’t tell much about the matter.
Carcinogenic chemicals in crude oil (and resultant from crude oil combustion, if it can be kindled) are to be considered in the light of how much exposure to these atmospheric and aquatic carcinogens is statistically significant as an oncogenic risk factor. Gotta be some quantification, no?
—
“Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time.”
—
For Rich M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon Natural crude oil and coal deposits contain significant amounts of PAHs, arising from chemical conversion of natural product molecules, such as steroids, to aromatic hydrocarbons. They are also found in processed fossil fuels, tar and various edible oils.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts69.html
Rather than risk Spam Karma, also check out the EPA website. Other sources available.
Canada’s Interim Assessment Criterion for
dibenz(a,h)anthracene is 0.01 ug/L [656].
EPA 1996 IRIS Drinking Water MCL [893]:
dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Value: 0.0002
mg/L Status/Year: Proposed 1990.
Sorry not at work where I can get up to date numbers.
You ask “”Carcinogenic chemicals in crude oil (and resultant from crude oil combustion, if it can be kindled) are to be considered in the light of how much exposure to these atmospheric and aquatic carcinogens is statistically significant as an oncogenic risk factor. Gotta be some quantification, no?””
Yes, at 0.1 to 0.02 ug/L (ppb) trace amounts are considered dangerous. They are found naturally and note that incomplete combustion can generate more. Since the crude is not volatized the amount of combustion can only be guessed. However, it is a cewrtainty that large fractions of the crude will not be combusted and that being aromatic that they will be airborne in the direction of the wind. Further compounding the problem of estimating is the generation by incomlete combustion. Since it has been shown and reported that the spill is at the coast in 3 states in significant quantities, even the most naive model will show exposure for population in these three coastal areas. Since Di-antracene has a biomagification factor of 51,000 (per one study) based on POctanol tests, it is expected to bioaccumulate in fish, and other organisms at or near the top of their respective food chains. Man, as the ultimate top of the food chain, it would be expected to accumulate at a much higher rate from initial exposure and from consumption in the human population than other populations.
Did British Petroleum rename itself BP so it could color itself green, and then run ads suggesting BP really meant “Beyond Petroleum”? I wonder — was all this green baloney a big distraction from BP’s basic business? Would things have been different if it had tended to its knitting instead of cutting cost-corners to help finance its useless green ad campaigns and to support its idiotic AGW anti-CO2 cap and trade taxation? Have BP’s initials now morphed into something like “Behemothic Polluter”? Anyhow, it’s encouraging to note that Lindsay Graham has regained his senses and is now tending to his own knitting by supporting nuclear power.
A few months ago Graham defended his work on legislation to adjust the planetary thermostat by saying that he spends time with college age Americans, and that with the rising generation, “global warming is not a debate, it’s a value.”
I think he hit the nail on the head with that observation. He also identified the main problem with “climate legislation”: it’s ultimate foundation is NOT in empirical science. Now that Graham has possibly begun to recognize that fact, a fairly steep learning curve lies ahead of him. I pray he proves a good learner.