BREAKING: House bill unveiled late Friday cuts EPA budget by $3 billion, blocks funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary CO2 source

What Lance said.

EPA budget goes backwards.
Jackson does moonwalk.
Obama sez thinking of (heads of) families, he’ll Vito Corleone the Bill

Open debate! Nice.
John

Thank you Rep. Fred Upton, Mike Simpson and the House Republicans.
This is good news, it’s a start, sanity is starting the slow and steady creep back into America and hopefully the rest of the world.

Best news I’ve heard for years! Thank gof for the US – now all we need is for the UK to wake up – fat chance!
Cheers
Douglas

I want Waxman, Pelosi,and Hoyer on the record. On this the engineers of Cap’n tax.
Now. Good for the Pubbies, bring it on!

Good move!!
Regulators should not have a blank check to write back door laws by regulation.
Enabling legislation for regulatory agencies like the EPA need to include a mandatory periodic review of regulations by the legislative branch, and re-affirmation of their regulatory authority and the regulations that they write.
No matter how well intentioned a group is, over time, unlimited authority to issue regulations will be abused as the regulations slowly morph into more and more restrictive versions with more and more unintended consequences and intentionally planted back doors to further regulation.
Keep regulatory agencies on a short leash and a tight budget. Make them prove they server a useful purpose on a periodic audit of their authority, regulations and methods.
To do otherwise is to leave the cookie jar unattended in a room of hungry kids.
Larry

FergalR says:

Turning cheap and plentiful coal into the liquid fuel we use will be a disaster for “Big Oil” which is why they’re pushing the climate change nonsense.

Excuse me? Do you actually believe this???
Who else has the capital to build these processing plants, who else has the transportation and distribution systems to exploit them?
Big Oil.
It used to be that people thought the Oil Sands here were going to be developed by “someone else”, shutting down “Big Oil”. Not even remotely close. A few startups worked on developing extraction technology, then sold it to Big Oil and walked away wealthy.
Big Oil will always be Big Oil. And instead of ranting against them, any sane individual will have Big Oil front and center in their portfolio.

Ah-we are forgetting congress provides the budget. The funds have to come from congress. No funding, no programs. When the Dems sold out the South Vietnamese
in 1974,-a good example and the Executive couldn’t do a thing about it. Also I wouldn’t count out a override from the Senate if it comes to that. There are scared Dems out there, and some do not want to see the economy crash and burn…
Well maybe the ones from California, which is crashing and burning…

R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?
Not at all!!! Keep the heat on the Prez!!! Job-killing Prez.
Good Work, Republicans. Take every opportunity to deprive the EPA of its resources. And make sure you spend a lot of time on national TV doing it.

And Hoggan will “expose” a mere $21 million from Exxon on few years funding… LOL

Veto was the first word that popped into my head too. However anything to get this out into the open is worth while in my mind. Now instead of being able to hind behind the EPA, people in Washington will have to put their names on one side or the other for this issue in a very open and public manner.
Reading the rest of the article, there are a few “politically incorrect” ideas in there. Definitely throwing down the gauntlet!

As a Canadian, I know that Prime Minister Harper does not want to harm our economy with this sort of thing. And when the opposition wants to press our federal government to do something about CO2, the standard reply is that we have to be in sync with the U.S. So I wish you success against the EPA!

R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?

Looks like R. Gates didn’t read the article. You see this bill isn’t just for funding the EPA, it’s to fund the entire government:

The continuing resolution, which would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is the latest attempt by Republicans to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

So if Obama Vetos the bill or the Senate Dems kill it they just cut all funding for the government, you know the whole shut down the government thing that the Dems and the MSM have been saying for weeks would be political suicide for the GOP to do.

House of Representatives
Battle Over Budget Cuts Raises Specter of Federal Government Shutdown

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/11/battle-budget-cuts-raises-specter-federal-government-shutdown/#ixzz1DiSym1LR
So there is Obama’s and the Dems choices cut the EPA funding (and the other 97 Billion in cuts ) or shutdown the government. Imagine what his approval rating will then be on handling the economy, the debt and the deficit. He’s already at 27% approval on handling the debt, 30% on the deficit and 37% on the economy. I guess he thinks the first to 0 approval wins!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110209/pl_yblog_theticket/obamas-approval-rating-on-the-deficit-hits-new-low

More likely this makes a great show for the Republicans, but when the final bill comes out as it is combined with the Senate bill, this little side-show will be stripped from the bill that comes before the President. IMO, this is interesting theatrics for the Republicans, but likely nothing more.

It’s about time the US Government learns that the Earth’s climate is outside its jurisdiction.

It’s not enough, we need to cut far more out of the federal budget and the EPA. I ran across this video earlier today that shows just how much our current overrun is.

The proposed bill HR.97 (The Free Industry Act) section 3 reads –
“Nothing in the Clean Air Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming.”
If Obama chooses stall all appropriations for the Eco-thieves Paralysing America by vetoing HR.97, he will also be reassociating himself with the words “global warming”. After he was laughed at in his first SOTU address when he used the term I am sure Obama is aware that the original name for the hoax is politically toxic. A veto comes with a bonus prize, a colourful neck tie with an interesting dead sea bird motif.

R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 8:58 pm
More likely this makes a great show for the Republicans, but when the final bill comes out as it is combined with the Senate bill, this little side-show will be stripped from the bill that comes before the President. IMO, this is interesting theatrics for the Republicans, but likely nothing more.
==================================
Keep talking it down, R. More likely it is your (and the others you support in the current Establishment’s….such as Lisa Jackson et.al’s) sideshow.
But thanks for your comments. You make responding to them “fun.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 8:58 pm
More likely this makes a great show for the Republicans, but when the final bill comes out as it is combined with the Senate bill, this little side-show will be stripped from the bill that comes before the President. IMO, this is interesting theatrics for the Republicans, but likely nothing more.

First showing he didn’t read the article, Mr. Gates shows that he doesn’t understand the legislative process. You see Mr. Gates the Senate doesn’t have final say. You should read up on the Budget Process here first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process
Pay particular attention to this part:

Once both houses pass the resolution, selected Representatives and Senators negotiate a conference report to reconcile differences between the House and the Senate versions. The conference report, in order to become binding, must be approved by both the House and Senate.

So first you are counting on every Dem in the Senate to side with removing that from the bill (not likely with 23 up for re-election and one already known Dem, Joe Manchin, who opposes the EPA regulation of CO2 or a Cap and trade bill) and second even if the Senate removes it from the bill they have to negotiate with the House GOP over the final bill and it has to re pass the House. So then you are counting on the GOP to reverse course in the reconciliation process and if that happens you need a third step: The House to pass it without the cuts. Good luck trying to get the Trifecta, you have better odds down at Santa Anita then that happening in the Congress.
So I can see the headlines now if the Senate kills the bill by removing the cuts:
Senate Dems kill Funding bill, shut down government:
Essential services were stopped today when Senate Democrats would not pass the funding bill over a 3 billion dollar cut to the EPA. In a move of cut your nose off to spite your face the Senate shut the entire EPA down by removing funding for the entire federal government in an effort to keep 3 billion in other spending for it….
Just replace the Senate Dems with Obama if the cuts remain and he vetos it.

That is good news but let’s make this real. Seems though if you really think this is good then write or call your Congressmen and let them know of your firm support for this move. Our has already has got the message. Gather names who oppose it. You might need those names during discussions leading up to the next election. Seems better to do something along with all of the praising and talking, this is not quite over yet. If you care for your family, children, friends, pick up a pen or the phone. Emails don’t count. Twitters don’t count. Make it something real. All here have said they think this is political, so, make it political.
— An Okie

Cut it by 3 BILLION dollars! That’s not the total. Think of such a large sum [which is the entire GDP of some small countries] and the fact that they are proposing “cutting” it by $3 billion.
I am disgusted at the monster the American Government has become.
Rumors is that Donald Trump might run for president.
Now that is a winner candidate if there ever was one.
Can you imagine him going through WHOLE departments and agencies that have FAR outlived their useful life with the words: “You’re fired!”
Hell yes!!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Since the current continuing resolution ends 4 March, I presume this 29% cut is off the remaining, almost, 7 months. That would be a .29 x (7/12) =16.9% cut. Is someone also cutting NASA’s climate escapades?

Could we be seeing a Gov’t shutdown on 5 march, if there is veto?

R. Gates says:
February 11, 2011 at 8:58 pm
IMO, this is interesting theatrics for the Republicans, but likely nothing more.
Right you are , Gates! With all of the latte’ Commie throw-backs, congenital Trolls, and craven Infantiles as your mighty Post Normal brain trust, you’re in no danger at all of ever losing a Freak Clown Show.

At 9:26 PM on 11 February, Mike McMillan had written:

Given the EPA ‘up yours’ attitude. that’s a good first step toward getting their attention. I suggest another step –
Forcing EPA management to live in the DC area only raises living expenses for them, and concentrates government spending in an area that’s already awash in money. We should introduce a bill that moves EPA headquarters out into the heartland, to regions that could benefit from additional employment, and that would provide lower living costs to the EPA employees.
I had Lenexa, Kansas in mind, but Cedar Rapids, Iowa or Lincoln, Nebraska would do.

.
I can go better than that. If we’re looking to Kansas, let’s forget about Lenexa (which is a rather nice, affluent suburb of Kansas City) and consider Greensburg instead.
You want an area “that could benefit from additional employment” in the heartland? Well, Greensburg is the town down near the Oklahoma border that got hit by an F5 tornado on 4 May 2007, a storm that destroyed just about everything in the city.
I visited Greensburg back in the late ’70s, and found it a very nice little place, way to hellangone out in the southwest corner of the Sunflower State, reachable only after driving for hours through the kind of country that leaves you wondering what kind of insanity made little Dorothy want to come back.
In addition to having gotten eaten by the hairiest kind of twister imaginable, Greensburg is remarkable as the site of the largest hand-dug well in the western hemisphere.
But best of all, for housing the whole federal government’s Environmental Protection Agency, the city fathers of Greensburg has declared their tiny polity a Green City. From the Wikipedia article:

After the tornado, the city council passed a resolution stating that all city buildings would be built to Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) – platinum standards, making it the first city in the nation to do so. Greensburg is rebuilding as a “green” town, with the help of Greensburg GreenTown, a non-profit organization created to help the residents learn about and implement the green living initiative.
‘
The city’s power will be supplied by ten 1.25 MW wind-turbines. Carbon offsets generated from the turbines are being managed by NativeEnergy, and have been purchased by charter supporters including Ben & Jerry’s, Clif Bar, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, and Stonyfield Farm.

.
Ain’t that just the perfect place in America to put the whole bloody EPA?

Why would the president veto a spending cuts bill?
This is exactly what the American people want to see: a reduction in spending. Government cuts make him look good and and he will still be open and able to support legislation to fund green energy projects which will protect his position on the environment. Seems like the opportunity to achieve a win-win for him.
Heck we can probably expect him to say something along the lines of, “We’ve made some hard decisions, made major cuts that will have a positive impact on the deficit…but we have also cleared some obstacles while creating opportunities for businesses to capitalize on green energy projects and create more jobs” Hey, stranger things have happened. Or am I missing something?

1. Nobody has shown that current global climate variation is unusual in any way.
2. Nobody has shown that current global climate variation is due to human CO2 emissions.
3. Nobody has shown that any regulations proposed by EPA would have any measurable impact on global CO2.
4. Nobody has shown that EPA has authority over global climate to begin with.
Bottom line: waste of money.

EPA must be dissolved.
Budget cuts will never be enough while this nest of saboteurs exists in principle.

No doubt there are Obama appointees who, over this weekend,
will sit at home in a chair, cradle their heads in their hands, and
rock back and forth gently moaning, “This is not happening…
this is not happening.”
Some of them will be from the State department and our
Intelligence agencies following the diplomatic nightmare
enveloping Egypt and the Middle East.
Some will be from the EPA. They, having lost the hearts and
fumbled control of the minds of the American citizens over
Global Warming/Climate Change, now face a curtailment of
runaway funding.
Those “scientists”, researchers, meteorolgists lobbyists, and
their ilk who have helped fabricate and then touted the “science
is solid” credo are seeing a light at the end of the tunnel. The
light they see is the freight train of scientific and political reality
headed straight for them.
With the wailing and gnashing of teeth to come, they all better
have a good dental plan.

It wasn’t all that long ago something like this was unimaginable. I wonder if the people putting the bill together read WUWT, ClinateAudit, RealScince, Musings from the Chiefio, JeffIdAirVent, etc?

Great idea but who’s going to watch the EPA to insure they don’t cheat? Can the WH divert funds from other sources to keep the EPA alive to regulate CO2? Can the Republicans in the House completely defund the EPA so they all have to be laid off?

crosspatch says:
February 11, 2011 at 10:45 pm
“1. Nobody has shown that current global climate variation is unusual in any way.
2. Nobody has shown that current global climate variation is due to human CO2 emissions.
3. Nobody has shown that any regulations proposed by EPA would have any measurable impact on global CO2.
4. Nobody has shown that EPA has authority over global climate to begin with.
Bottom line: waste of money.”
Exactly! Just like healing. You invent some “disease”, and then you “heal” it.
When everyone understands that “Back-radiation” is imagination, the house of cards falls.

At last! A glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

Whilst it is difficult to see why EPA has such a large budget to begin with, this is a good start provided that the President does not scupper the plan by vetoing. Perhaps someone is beginning to smell the smelling salts and lets hope the President gets a whiff of these.
Now if only the UK could take note and act in similar fashion, but unfortunately, we seem to have ring fenced our budget for climate change action such that no cuts are being made despite the UK being bankrupt and unable to afford the project.

This buys us time in the sense that IF we enter a prolonged cooling phase the debate in the House has to hot up [pun intended]. Damage to the US economy will be minimized.

Folks
I;m not familiar with the detail of the US political process. So please explain exactly what this means in practice:
Is it likely that by tabling this motion it will become law?
How long will it take to do so?
Can the Senate or Pres. Obama veto it?
Or is it a ‘done deal’, as in the UK where government bills are very rarely not passed.
Sorry to be ignorant – since the insurrectionists started their political experiment in 1776 their process is all a bit mysterious 🙂

‘When everyone understands that “Back-radiation” is imagination, the house of cards falls.’
I will disagree with you here. I believe it is pretty well-established that CO2 does absorb some wavelengths of IR and that it does radiate a portion of that back to the surface. That isn’t the question. The question is if it is significant.
H2O is a much more efficient IR absorbing molecule and radiates so much that any increase in CO2 is likely to go unnoticed. There is so much water vapor in the atmosphere that it is already nearly opaque at the frequencies absorbed by CO2. If you paint a window black with a thick coat of paint, and then add one more thin coat, does it really make a difference?
A photon is much more likely to hit a molecule of H2O than CO2. CO2 only absorbs radiation over a small portion of the spectrum that H2O absorbs. There is so much “back radiation” from H2O that any additional radiation from CO2 is likely to be immeasurable. In other words, removing every bit of CO2 from the atmosphere isn’t likely to make any measurable difference because the primary greenhouse gas is water and we can’t get rid of water.

Awesome, awesome news!!!

Ted says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Having read a little more I’m putting the cork back in the Bubbly bottle maybe/ yes we definitely do we need a lot tougher medicine, it’s time to play hard ball.
I just read Steve Milloy, ………
========================================================These are two very different pieces of legislation. As pointed out by others, what Anthony posted refers to a spending bill. What Steve Milloy was referencing was something entirely different. Milloy is right, if the bill passes, it will be vetoed. But, a funding bill is a bit different. The House of Representatives are the ones that hold the purse strings to this country. All spending bills go through them. You can’t force them to create a spending bill they don’t wish to. All presidents hate this part, but there’s not much they can do about it. Of course, the president can veto, but then he won’t have any money to play with. Essentially, this comes down to a test of will and media message. If house repubs can hang in there and weather the image storm, they will win. If this is all they offer, then eventually, the president will have little choice but to sign the bill. There’s still a long way to go though. And I’m not entirely impressed by the repubs in this congress to this point. There’s very little time.

Latimer Alder says:
“Is it likely that by tabling this motion it will become law?
How long will it take to do so?
Can the Senate or Pres. Obama veto it?
Or is it a ‘done deal’, as in the UK where government bills are very rarely not passed.”
The Republicans will negotiate with the Democrats, to negotiate a compromise on the budget. The big picture is that the Republicans (led by the House, which is controlled by Republicans) want to cut $100 billion from the USA federal budget this year. So $3B is a small cut in the big picture. Obama is ramping up for the 2012 election and is presenting himself as a kindred spirit of Reagan. My guess is that Obama will fold and tell the EPA to hold off on regulating CO2 for this year (in exchange for getting something that he wants more).
EPA regulating CO2 is generating lawsuits and civil disobedience (Texas flat refuses to recognize the feds right to regulate CO2) and is not going to help the economy (Obama’s biggest hurdle to get reelected).
Obama probably loudly blames this on neanderthal Republicans but may (secretly) be happy to have this particular squabble off the plate.
In the event that that an agreement is not reached, the Republicans will offer a continuing resolution to keep critical government operations going. The Democrats will go along with it because they are not going to shut down government. The Republicans have the edge in this conflict so long as they carefully craft small, well defined spending bills. All spending bills originate in the House.

Isnt it kinda cool to think how websites such as this have played a part in such monumentous action and helped to at least stall the ecoloon juggernaut. I’m sure this website along with climate audit have played no small part.
Thx Anthony…/no sarc

Latimer Alder says:
February 12, 2011 at 1:22 am

Literally, the Constitution of the United States of America says:

Article I, Section 7… All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;[2] If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Article I, Section 9…The Constitution of the United States of America Article I states: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is capable of passing the bill against the objections of the Democrat minority. The Democrat majority in the Senate is capable of defeating the bill against the objections of the Republican minority. Although the Senate is not expected to pass the bill without unaccepatable amendments, even if the Senate passed the bill, the president can sign the bill into law, take no action and thereby allow the bill to become law after the elapse of the required number of days, or veto the bill and return it to Congress. The House of Representatives and the Senate could override a President’s veto with a two thirds vote approving the bill, but the prospect of the Democrats of this Congress agreeing to do so with the bill in this form are highly unlikely. So the bill… in its present form…has virtually no chance whatsoever of proceeding further towards becoming a Public Law than the approval of the House of Representatives.
What is likely, however, is the use of this bill to compel concessions from the Democrats in Congress on other legislative bills in exchange for an amended version of this bill. The Democrats face either making a major compromise on this bill and other bills or become blamed by the voters in the 2012 elections for their role in a shutdown of the Federal Government by failing to agree to a Continuing Resolution for an appropriation of budgetary funds in 2011. The Democrats for their part will threaten to hold the Republicans to blame for causing a shutdown of the Federal Government. What will be seen in the next few weeks as the budget deadline and shutdown of the federal Government approaches is a confrontation between the two parties to see who flinches and compromises firstest and mostest. The EPA, NPR, PBS, and elements of NASA are among the bargaining chips. The EPA faces crippling losses of funding and/or restrictions upon its climate change activities in any event.

Now cut NSF funding

crosspatch,
Although what you say is true, it is only part of the story. I remember Bush appearing in front of the cameras telling Americans about a new regulation that would allow Fannie and Freddie to lend MORE to people with poor credit ratings, in order to bring home ownership to as many Americans as possible. Now, maybe he was coerced into doing this, I don’t know, but I like to judge the walk not the talk.
It was also the case that after the post milenium market crash, Bush and Greenspan applied a peddle to the metal monetary policy to try and reflate the bubble – the so called Greenspan bubble. Too much loose money, artificially low interest rates and laws making Freddie and Fannie lend to the subprime market contributed to the financial collapse.

I would love to see this legislation pass and Obama veto it. The higher energy costs and job losses from the EPA’s GHG regulations, coupled with the strong likelihood of $4.00+ gasoline prices while he is campaigning (due in part to his own policies) will make Obama highly vulnerable to a resupmtion of his career as a university professor. He will do much less harm there.

I think if we remind the American people of the government science groups who received “stimulus” funds in 2010 (on top of their already outrageous increases in FY2010 budgets) – all while you and I in the private sector were struggling to make ends meet – passing the necessary budget cuts will be very easy, indeed…
Did you know that many government science employees (including our favorite climate elites) received salary increases in 2009 while our economy was tanking???

Let’s see if I can avoid another goddam HTML error this time.
At 3:25 AM on 12 February, D. Patterson had written:

The House of Representatives and the Senate could override a President’s veto with a two thirds vote approving the bill, but the prospect of the Democrats of this Congress agreeing to do so with the bill in this form are highly unlikely. So the bill… in its present form…has virtually no chance whatsoever of proceeding further towards becoming a Public Law than the approval of the House of Representatives.
.
What is likely, however, is the use of this bill to compel concessions from the Democrats in Congress on other legislative bills in exchange for an amended version of this bill. The Democrats face either making a major compromise on this bill and other bills or become blamed by the voters in the 2012 elections for their role in a shutdown of the Federal Government by failing to agree to a Continuing Resolution for an appropriation of budgetary funds in 2011. The Democrats for their part will threaten to hold the Republicans to blame for causing a shutdown of the Federal Government. What will be seen in the next few weeks as the budget deadline and shutdown of the federal Government approaches is a confrontation between the two parties to see who flinches and compromises firstest and mostest. The EPA, NPR, PBS, and elements of NASA are among the bargaining chips. The EPA faces crippling losses of funding and/or restrictions upon its climate change activities in any event.

.
First, the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP, ’cause they quit being “democratic” when they enacted Obamacare over the loud and enraged disapproval of an overwhelming majority of their own “on the plantation” voting constituencies) is never going to vote to override a veto issued by their own Mombasa Marxist Messiah.
So let’s get that out of even the remotest kind of speculative fantasy. In fact, the “Liberal” fascist Senate majority isn’t going to allow anything to get to the Resolute desk that might require our Fraudulence-in-Chief to veto it. Like it or not, they’re stuck with that incompetent ignoramus (yet again he says “corpse-man” instead of “corpsman” in a public speech, the stupid son-of-suspect-parentage) as the public face of their faction until either the nation throws him out of office or federal marshals come in with handcuffs and belly-chains to perp-walk that criminal thug through the Rose Garden to a nice cell in Guantanamo.
Second, there’s simply no way that the National Socialists can “threaten to hold the Republicans to blame for causing a shutdown of the Federal Government” when it’s perfectly clear that this effort to prevent Barry Soetoro’s EPA from shoving the U.S. economy even deeper into economic catastrophe over “global warming” in the depths of the third consecutive deadly cold winter we’ve suffered is precisely the kind of thing over which the 2010 midterm electoral contest was waged.
In every other significant way – particularly with regard to increasing the debt limit – the Republican leadership have done the “go along to get along” bit, even though those new Tea Party congresscritters who provide them with the majority in the House of Representative are conspicuously sharpening big knives and making insurgent noises behind the Boehner back. If anybody is at risk of public hatred for “causing a shutdown of the Federal Government,” it’s the National Socialist bunch.
And they know it. Even though the MSM is still overwhelmingly rah-rah for the fascisti, the MSM is no longer capable of locking down public opinion to favor the Blue Party.
The EPA either ceases to be Barry Soetoro’s vehicle of choice for sidestepping the public will or the EPA ceases to be.
What else can the National Socialists do but back out of this minefield before they get their other leg blown off?

X-mass in Febuary. Hoo what fun it is tonight…

Sorry if this posts twice, it looks like it had a HTML problem 1st try…
EPA has a $10B budget? That’s $10,000 million.
From SBA: “In 2009,there were 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates. The lastest available Census data show that there were 6.0 million firms with employees in 2007 and 21.4 million without employees in 2008. Small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the total ( employers and nonemployers), as the most recent data show there were about 18,311 large businesses in 2007.”
Spread that over only “large businesses”, it’s $546,119 per large business.
Spread that over small businesses (only the ones WITH employees), it’s $1,666 per small business, i.e. mom & pop shops. What on earth can they spend that much on?
A 30% cut is a bad joke. Unless it’s done every year for about 3 years, that would get you to about a 65% total cut. It might begin to come to life and function correctly at that level. I’m inclined to think anything less than an 80% cut is too little, but 30% per year for 4 years would allow them to manage the change and shrink in a more efficient way.
Take a look at this:
Annual Cost of Federal Regulations by Firm size
Type of Cost per Employees for Firms with:
Regulations Fewer than 20-499 500 or More
20 Employees Employees Employees
All Regulations $10,585 $7,454 $7,755
Economics 4,120 4,750 5,835
Tax Compliance 1,584 1,294 883
Occupational
Safety and Home-
Land Security 781 650 520
That is federal compliance PER EMPLOYEE!!! Man, it’s time to cut everything across the board by 80%. Can you imagine the sigh of relief? We’d probably be at full employment in months.

I can’t believe AGWers pronosticators don’t know in advance the outcome of the bill whereas they can predict climate change in 50 years (and how economy will suffer if we do nothing).

It’s a good start. But Harry Reid will never let it through the Senate.

Tucci78,
I LOVE your comments! You can always tell a physician from a physicist. The erudite physician has a sense of humor.

Onward and upward:
“February 11, 2011
The following information was released by the office of Missouri Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer:
U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) today reintroduced legislation that would save taxpayers millions of dollars by prohibiting the United States from contributing to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science.
The IPCC advises governments around the world on climate change, and supporters of cap-and-tax legislation have used questionable findings by the IPCC as reason to support onerous legislation and regulations for small businesses and farmers, Luetkemeyer said. Criticism of this science intensified over the last two years when emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.”
http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/wire-news-display/1357883185.html

@ R. Gates says:
February 12, 2011 at 1:28 pm
——–
REPLY Nice to meet you at last, Mr. Gates!! You and I may be kindred spirits in many regards. Kudos on your mention regarding the bloated military spending, corporate welfare (I get all fussed-up about crop subsidies in general), and campaign spending.
I also support hard & fast term limits on congressman (5 two-year terms should be enough), senators (2 six-year terms) etc. Also, I’d start balancing the budget with their own bloated paychecks, staff payrolls etc.
Although I am a skeptic of climate-change science, I also have great respect for the USEPA (and none for the CRU/Hockey Team), and the US public will be ill-served if cutbacks to the EPA impact clean water, hazwaste regulations etc.
Is it just me, or is WUWT starting to sound like the comments section for “Drudge Report”?

CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
February 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm
“Although I am a skeptic of climate-change science, I also have great respect for the USEPA (and none for the CRU/Hockey Team), and the US public will be ill-served if cutbacks to the EPA impact clean water, hazwaste regulations etc.”
I agree with the specific fields you mentioned, but the EPA’s ‘endangered species’ department and the ‘science’ supporting much of it is junk at least as bogus as the worst from the AGW gang. The wolf issue in the western states is perhaps the largest current example of that but that is just the tip of that rotten iceberg.
So, I’d like to see the funding for that fraudulent ‘listing’ racket cut by 99%.

R. Gates,
What do your political leanings tell you about confiscating the private property of oil, natural gas and coal companies? How do you lean on U.S. sovereignty versus international control of energy usage? What is your personal opinion of the Koch brothers (1) that they helped millions of people by providing cheaper energy or (2) that they are evil rich people who deserve to have their plants targeted by the EPA?

Al Gored says:
February 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
February 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm
“Although I am a skeptic of climate-change science, I also have great respect for the USEPA (and none for the CRU/Hockey Team), and the US public will be ill-served if cutbacks to the EPA impact clean water, hazwaste regulations etc.”
I agree with the specific fields you mentioned, but the EPA’s ‘endangered species’ department and the ‘science’ supporting much of it is junk at least as bogus as the worst from the AGW gang. The wolf issue in the western states is perhaps the largest current example of that but that is just the tip of that rotten iceberg.
So, I’d like to see the funding for that fraudulent ‘listing’ racket cut by 99%.”
—-
REPLY I think you mean Department of the Interior and not the USEPA! EPA isn’t involved in wolves etc.
Also, I’m not a big supporter of ranch operators who utilize free feeding rights on US park lands to make a big profit, but then want to eradicate wolves etc. We need the apex predators to maintain a balanced ecosystem. Lack of predation is why chronic-wasting disease is spreading like wildfire through elk & whitetail deer herds.
We have coyotes all over the Chicago area now, and I love it! They keep the pest population down…..racoons, rabbits, cats, small dogs, etc. I’d enjoy having wolves in Illinois, we have had migrant pumas and the odd black bear in recent years.

kcrucible & James Sexton says:
February 12, 2011 at 2:16 am
Ted says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Having read a little more I’m putting the cork back in the Bubbly bottle maybe/ yes we definitely do we need a lot tougher medicine, it’s time to play hard ball.
I just read Steve Milloy, ………
kcrucible and James, Thanks for the a more positive outcome and correction. I’ll have a couple of Co2 charged Ice colds brew with my spicy pizza and Hockey game tonight in celebration!
Cheers Ted.

Finally….they need to just shut down the gov’t and then they need to start putting these crooks at EPA (and FCC – that’s you genachowski) in jail for overstepping their bounds…Congress (representing and accountable to the people) makes the laws, not these appointed stooges….

Obama can have a 29% cut or veto and get 100% cut. Obama can’t draft a budget. His only power is to veto spending.
Yes I have met the Koch brothers and even met their father years ago. Nice and rational minds. Joe Romm can’t belly ache because several have MIT PhD’s.
It takes very little money at the EPA because all they do is read bulletins from the IPCC. They do zero research of their own.

R. Gates says:
February 12, 2011 at 7:22 pm
=============================
As usual, you lace your arguments with enough truth.
But when you zoom camera back and look for those little strings of truth…all one can see, in your bigger picture, is a steaming pile of you know what.
Also, in your paragraph nonsense response to me, you completely conflated, misspoke, misquoted, and distorted what I was saying,
You have no sense of perception whatsoever of the real world of the military…and the many specialists who operate there, and they, just like the real scientists, whom you try to ally yourself with [or sometimes pretend to be one], would eat you for lunch.
You live in a dream ivory tower world, sprinkled with fairy dust, far removed from the world’s real ills….in a world of “AGW models” and computer-generated non-reality.
Never in the many scores of the posts that I have seen you write, has ever ONE been without spin. Seriously, you could not punch a cogent argument out of a paper bag.
But then again…you make it fun to pounce on all the weaknesses…so from that standpoint, as I have always said: Keep it up.
This thread had nothing to do with the military, R…but as usual, you use your little highjacking technique to try and steer it off course.
It is about the EPA….and ever last DOLLAR of that 3 Billion [and then some] could be better appropriated to more important aspects of government.
I hope Lisa Jackson is seriously shaking in her pumps.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

savethesharks says:
February 12, 2011 at 10:48 pm
To R. Gates he says:
“As usual, you lace your arguments with enough truth.”
____
I think 100% would qualify as “enough”. There is waste across the entire federal government, with the bloated military being exceptionally wasteful. Those who have been in the military know this. Balancing the federal budget will be painful for everyone, but should be especially painful (if its done honestly) for those companies who have made their profits by supplying over-priced and unnecessary goods and services to the U.S. military. If the conservatives want to weld a mighty-budget ax, and make all sorts of noise in doing so, then it needs to fall equally on both the EPA and the Pentagon. Ron Paul gets this, and it brings me no small amount of joy.

Eric (skeptic) says:
February 13, 2011 at 7:07 am
R. Gates, thanks for your reply. One of my questions wasn’t clear, the clear version is “what is opinion of ceding control of energy usage to international agencies like IPCC rather than maintaining free market (I shouldn’t have said sovereign) control?
_____
No country should ever cede any control of anything it does to an outside agency or international body. But there is a big difference between giving control to any outside authority and volunteering to participate cooperatively with other countries on issues that have a global effect. But this must always be seen as cooperation, and never as a granting of authority to an outside agency. Putting aside the issue of AGW for a moment, it seems that there are many in this country (and other countries) who simply refuse to admit that there are issues that need international cooperation and require a consistent multi-national approach to solving them. I don’t understand this kind of thinking at all. There are many issues that require the international community to agree (voluntarily) to cooperate to solve them, if they are to be solved. These issues range from the global ecosystems to dictators possessing nuclear weapons, and international cooperation is the only way they will be solved. It would be hoped that the citizens living in individual countries would be educated enough to see the need for voluntary international cooperation on issues affecting the global community.
In short, no the IPCC, nor the UN, nor any outside agency should ever have the ability to control our energy usage. But if it turned out that something we were doing with our energy usage were indeed having global impacts, one could only hope that we’d be smart enough and unselfish enough to want to voluntarily agree to do something about it.

Pamela Gray says:
February 13, 2011 at 10:33 am
And what vote do we have when our government agrees to “cooperate” with an outside entity?
_____
Living in a democracy, our leaders should represent the will of “we the people”, not the will of Oprah, Haliburton, or the Koch Bros. Hence why we need comprehensive campaign finance reform, so that the best leaders make it to D.C., not the best financed. So, to your question– to the extent that the leaders represent the will of the people (and not the money of the rich and powerful) then the agreements they make will reflect the will of the people.
On a tangential note: The leaders in Washington–from Democrat to Republican to Tea Party, will NEVER willingly give up their gravy-train umbilical cord ties to big money. It will require a true grass-roots movement to forever separate that umbilical cord. I have my skepticism that such a we-the-people campaign finance reform movement could occur as it is far too easy for big money to initiate confusion through the media and get the common voter arguing about other emotionally charged hot-button issues while the foxes stay in charge of the chicken coop.

Having been a mid-level manager conducting and doing atmospheric research at EPA for over twenty years, I know what budget cuts can do. I’ve been retired for over 20 years and one reason I retired early was that research was becoming more politically directed. “Finding” CO2 to endanger public health and wellfare was most politically motivated and did not follow the guidelines of the Clean Air Act. This will be decided in the courts. I hope Alan Carlin wasn’t the last objective researcher to leave EPA and the Agency can return to the job that it was established to do. I hope that the threat of budget cuts at any amount will prevent bad regulations based on bad science and force them to go back to the drawing board and do their research as directed in the Clean Air Act. I would favor a lessor cut if they would do that. This may be a negotiating point.

davidmhoffer says:
February 13, 2011 at 1:25 pm
R. Gates;
It would be hoped that the citizens living in individual countries would be educated enough to see the need for voluntary international cooperation on issues affecting the global community.>>>
Your naivety is charming. Seems so obvious, doesn’t it, this notion that if only people were educated enough they would see the “obvious” need for voluntary cooperation. I submit to you that if people were properly educated, the impracticality of such a notion would be obvious, as would the mortal danger freedom would be in if any such consensus was ever achieved.
____
I am hardly naive about the realities of the world, and that, in general, individuals, groups, and whole societies will usually act in their own best interest. At some point, certain issues cross national borders and require cooperation to solve. If a “dictator” doesn’t want to cooperate, then so be it. If the issue is severe enough, they shall eventually suffer the consequences. Educated people do make better decisions than uneducated people, and even more so, educated people also are less swayed by propaganda. Witness, for example, current smoking rates, and the entire campaign by Big Tobacco to convince uneducated people that smoking (1st or second hand smoke) had no proven connection to cancer and other health disorders. As it turns out, rates of smoking are higher among the lower educated peoples, not just in the U.S., but across the planet, and in fact, the Tobacco companies love to pray on the uneducated, as it is the last bastion where they can sell their products.
See:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5542a1.htm#tab
This is exactly analogous to events which require international cooperation. There would be groups who would like to convince the uninformed that such cooperation is unnecessary. The best thing to do is do educate yourself and your population to make the best decisions. To be better educated is to be more free to make truly informed decisions.
See: http://tiny.cc/7wux3
I am not specifically talking about the AGW issue here at all, but the general need for international cooperation on certain issues that have global impact, from the environment to nuclear proliferation.

Fred H. Haynie says:
February 13, 2011 at 4:12 pm
To R. Gates,
Should the masses be “educated” in CAGW using the IPCC bible?
______
Not just educated, but indoctrinated! The IPCC findings should be taught to every first grader from Anchorage to Miami and from Sidney to Moscow. A picture of Al Gore should be placed on every schoolroom wall with the words below to read: “From the Internet to Global Warming…he showed us the Light!”
(sarcasm off)
On second thought, how about we just teach real science to our kids…then they might understand the uncertainty involved in climate science and not be 25th out of 37 countries in the world for math and science. And guess who’s #1…yep, China.
See
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/teens-in-u-s-rank-25th-on-math-test-trail-in-science-reading.html
Maybe if we weren’t so preoccupied with our petty politics and other distractions, we might actually put such nonsense behind, roll up our sleeves and rebuild our educational system (yep, that means an end to tenure), and realize that we’re rapidly slipping way back in the pack and leaving our kids with a future of McJobs…

davidmhoffer says:
February 13, 2011 at 6:06 pm
R. Gates;
The best thing to do is do educate yourself and your population to make the best decisions. To be better educated is to be more free to make truly informed decisions.>>>
Your naivety is both charming and dangerous.
Who decides what facts to put into the education in the first place? What history, and whose version of it? Religion’s version of creation or science’s? Which religion? Which science? Who decides? And how do you curb the power of those who decide? Do you even understand what power that gives them?
_____
Truth is what works. That’s the only truth one needs to know and what should be taught. Creationism is a matter of faith, not science, and as such has no place in schools except as a topic in a religious studies class perhaps. As the Chinese leave us behind and take command of the 21st century, they will teach us the that truth is what works many times over. While we bicker about evolution vs. creationism or the whether Thomas Jefferson was a great American or a cad, or get caught up in our mindless liberal vs. conservative bickering, the Chinese are building tomorrow with faster computers, high-speed rail, and now lead the world in patents. Some backwards thinking people will say the Chinese stole our technology and other such nonsense. Nope, they’ve learned what we used to know…the way forward is through hard work (their students study an average of 20 hours more a week at the high school level their our students do), innovation (they now lead in patents– meaning new original technology), and thrift (Americans have used their large McMansions as ATM machines for far too long).
I applaud anyone’s effort to cut the U.S. debt, as it is a necessary but painful first step forward. But we must not lose sight of what made us great in the past…those values of hard work, innovation, and thrift. We must work to once more having the best education system, the most innovative technology, and learn to actually save, rather than spend like drunken sailors. If we do all these things well, we may just have a chance of preventing the slide of America into a second-class country full of McJobs. Balancing the U.S. budget is a good first step, but the harder tasks are ahead…

davidmhoffer says:
February 13, 2011 at 6:06 pm
“REAL democracies like Canada, the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain…”
___
And you called me naive? With the majority of our U.S. Senators being millionaires, and it costing tens of millions of dollars just to get one of those coveted senate seats, the days of being able to call the United States a “real” democracy is long ago passed away. It takes big money to buy your way to D.C., and that big money expects to be taken care of once you get there. Voters are manipulated by expensive campaign ads backed by big money. The term plutocracy is far more appropriate for what the former American democracy has devolved into. Many Americans will resist the idea that their democracy is really a plutocracy (if they even know what that means), but the plain truth is that big$ rules Washington, and the Liberal vs. Conservative battle is just a side show that only dictates which big$ is in charge at any given time.

savethesharks says:
February 13, 2011 at 9:33 pm
R. Gates says:
February 12, 2011 at 7:22 pm
You quote me as saying just this:
“As usual, you lace your arguments with enough truth.”
==========================================
But what you did not quote me me saying to you after that is, for obvious reasons,
left out:
But I will repeat it here:
“But when you zoom camera back and look for those little strings of truth…all one can see, in your bigger picture, is a steaming pile of you know what.”
_____
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I don’t see you offering any little bits of truth yourself to counter what I say, but rather, simply putting labels on what I say. It probably bothers you that I propose deep cuts across the board in the U.S. budget, including that traditional sacred cow to many (but not all conservatives) the mighty Pentagon. You wrongly assume that bigger is better and more is better when it comes to military spending. Such irrational thinking is thankfully not present in conservatives such as Ron Paul, who knows that bigger can sometimes mean just plain bloated and in need of a huge reduction program.

R. Gates says:
It probably bothers you that I propose deep cuts across the board in the U.S. budget, including that traditional sacred cow to many (but not all conservatives) the mighty Pentagon
=========================
NO.
What bothers me…is your deliberate and squirrelly manipulation of what other people say!
You are a spin doctor….quickly coming to the defense of other spin doctors like James Hansen and his current NASA and Lisa Jackson and her outmoded, BLOATED EPA.
There are many other government agencies, besides the EPA and the current NASA…the Department of Education, the DEA, the IRS, the FDA, the FCC, and many, many others like them…that need to be axed….[or at least radically trimmed down].
But….unlike the military….none of these diseases that mask themselves a government agencies….depend on LIFE OR DEATH for their survival.
You are a fool, R Gates if you think otherwise.
But….given your performance so far….I am not surprised.
Incapable of change, you automatically try to appear like one who adapts…but in reality, you do nothing of the sort.
A true definition of a ‘second-hander’ in an Ayn Rand novel.
So the true colors are revealed here: You are not just loathing the US Military.
You are in a backhanded, passive-aggressive way, trying to defend the EPA.
Hilarious!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

R. Gates said “Truth is what works. That’s the only truth one needs to know and what should be taught.
Creationism is a matter of faith, not science, and as such has no place in schools except as a
topic in a religious studies class perhaps. As the Chinese leave us behind and take command of
the 21st century, they will teach us the that truth is what works many times over.”
That’s an all-too-common philosophy. I guess it evolved from utilitarianism. The truth is that the only truth is faith. Everything else is subject to change by new evidence. Overall coherence is as far as we will get in science.
As for the Chinese and their utilitarianism, I would remind you they also harvest organs from their condemned. I remember another Asian country that made a great clone of the Z80 processor in the 70’s By the 80’s they were flying high, like Icarus. The Chinese will follow that path, but being even more utilitarian they won’t make the same mistakes that the Japanese did and will fly even higher. That just means they will fall from a higher up and the results won’t be pretty.

I love what Boehner said, “I smoke, leave me alone.” It is the business of individuals to smoke, drink, or do whatever is deemed dangerous. And it is the business of private business to allow it or not. Do-gooders will often say, “We need to educate the people so they make better choices.” When that doesn’t work, they will often say, “We need to impose regulations so that people make better choices.” R. Gates, when that happens, we lose our freedom AND our vote! You advocate, in essence, sharia law, which we already have in this country in several forms. The burka covers both you and me. That you don’t realize it is interesting.

davidmhoffer says:
February 14, 2011 at 5:14 am
R. Gates;
Truth is what works. That’s the only truth one needs to know and what should be taught.>>
I repeat the question: Whose truth? Who decides? Was there an Armenian genocide or wasn’t there? Shall you teach history according to Turkey or the Armenians? Does CO2 heat the planet? Whose version of physics will be taught? You think that there some actual thing as Truth? The only actual truth is that when someone puts a capital T on it, death is coming, in waves
_____
Whose version of physics? Do you really think that science is like history? Perhaps the history of science, but not the science itself. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and through its real measureable effects, does keep the earth warmer than it would be if there were none in the atmosphere. If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, we’d be an ice-planet. Why? Because water vapor is a condensing gas at the temperature range found on earth, and it would all condense out of the atmosphere as it cooled. CO2 is all the stands in way of a return to an ice-planet. But I suppose some skeptics might want to teach their children that this tiny trace gas has very little real funtion in the atmosphere, and could drop to 0 ppm without consequence. Probably the same type of person who’d teach their kids that the earth was created 6,000 years ago…

Fred H. Haynie says:
February 14, 2011 at 2:13 pm
To R. Gates.
I don’t know where you got your science education, but it is messed up. Water is the temperature regulator on earth. Any minor affect CO2 has is lost in the variability in the energy exchange in the processes of evaporation/condensation and freeze/thaw. (And don’t give me a positive feedback reply, the tail isn’t wagging the dog.) CO2 is just going along for the ride and is a lagging indicator of climate change.
_______
Oh, I guess the American Association for the Advancement of Science, (AAAS) is not a good enough source of research for you? Would you like to insult me based purely on your odd belief that CO2 is only “along for the ride”? I thought I had some respect for you, but now must doubt that decision. Before you come here and insult me again, please find out the difference between a condensing and noncondensing GHG, and why that makes a big difference, read these articles, and then we might have a reasonable scientific conversation without your appeal to unfounded and standard skeptical nonsense:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101014171146.htm
http://amanwithaphd.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/non-condensing-greenhouse-gases-are-why-we-are-not-a-frozen-wasteland/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3650/carbon-dioxide-is-key-on-earth-and-mars
http://machineslikeus.com/news/carbon-dioxide-controls-earths-temperature

R. Gates,
I’m not insulting you as you are trying to do to me. I’m stating facts that can be varified with observed data. You have to have some basic scientific education to be able to understand what you read in scientific journals. The more complex the science, the more education you need to be able to understand. Think about it. How much energy is transported from the oceans to the air as it evaporates? Compare that to the little amount of energy that a couple of vibration frequencies in CO2 trap low energy photons. Better yet. Calculate the thermodynamic functions for the reacting ingrediants using the rigid rotator, harmonic oscilator approximation. If you feel quailfied, “peer” review my presentations on the subject. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf, http//www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf, and http://www.kidswincom.net/arcticseaice.pdf. My e-mail address can be found on my website if you don’t wish to reply here. If you wish to read some of my peer reviewed publications, Google “Fred H. Haynie” where you will find more than blog comments.

Tony says:
February 14, 2011 at 9:28 am
boballab says:
So I can see the headlines now if the Senate kills the bill by removing the cuts:
Senate Dems kill Funding bill, shut down government:
Essential services were stopped today when Senate Democrats would not pass the funding bill over a 3 billion dollar cut to the EPA.
You have too much faith in the media. In reality it would be more like this:
Republicans force government shut-down:
Essential services were stopped today when Senate Democrats refused to pass dangerous Repulican legislation aimed at undermining essential government services.

That would have worked in 1995 (and did back then when all you had was the Big 3 and CNN), unfortunately for the Dems there is Fox News now (and it pulls in more viewers then CNN and MSNBC combined) and the internet which has been getting larger and larger share of people turning it for news. So no, the Dems won’t have it their way like they did when Clinton was able to pawn everything off on Gingrich. Like I put up just take a look at Obama’s numbers for handling the Economy, Debt and Deficit and they are still falling.

Fred H. Haynie says:
February 14, 2011 at 6:36 pm
R. Gates,
I’m not insulting you as you are trying to do to me. I’m stating facts that can be varified with observed data.
____
Fred, you first opened up on me by saying “I don’t know where you got your science education, but it is messed up…”
I’ve read your presentation and have no issues with the basic science you present. Yes, everyone knows that water vapor is more potent greenhouse gas, etc., but that was not my point before, nor the point being made in the numerous links I provided. Not once did you mention a very KEY difference between CO2 and water vapor. Not once did the words “condensing” or “non condensing” even appear in your presentation. Why would you leave this out? This is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between these two gases as they operate in our atmosphere. When the earth’s was in one of it’s “snowball” periods and the oceans saw ice nearly to the equator, it is was not water vapor that pulled the planet out of this condition, nor was it Milankovtich cycles, but CO2. This tiny trace gas, that you assert is “just along for the ride” did not condense out of the atmosophere as water vapor does when things get so cold. A great period of volcanic activity, which brought great quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere is what finally got the earth out of that period. That tiny trace gas “just along for the ride” broke the back of the snowball earth period. Yes, water vapor is more potent, but it does no good at all when it is essentially completely condensed out of the atmosphere. CO2 was the key, and still is. Yes it is not as potent a GHG in a specifed temperature range, but it can act over a much larger temperature range. So, before you come back to insult my science education, I would hope that you read up both on the differences between condensing vs. non condensing GHG’s, as well as the roll of CO2 in ending the snowball earth period around 700 million years ago…

R. Gates,
It’s basic science. The processes of evaporation, condensation, freezing, and thawing is how water controls temperature. . Evaporating water adds energy to air without raising the temperature. At night when the surface cools by radiation, The air near the surface is cooled down to the dew point. While dew is forming, the temperature remains at the dew point taking energy out of the air. In the Arctic, the formation of sea ice serves as an insulator controlling the rate of heat loss to space. In the arctic, there is very little water vapor in the air during the winter and you should see an effect of CO2 because that is when it is at it’s seasonal highest. With fifty years of increases, CO2 has not reduced OLR in the Artic. The Arctic has been warming and reducing it’s ability to suck up CO2 so CO2 continues to rise. It is at it’s seasonal high in winter because the Arctic is covered with ice and the sink is stoppered.